Just what is a photograph
Pat
a photograph was. You shone light on a negative, developed it, put in
in an enlarger, shone light on a piece of light-sensitive paper, and
developed that. When you got done you had a photograph. You could
add elements, dodge, burn, screw with chemicals or make lithos; but in
the end it all came down to shining light on a piece of paper and
getting a print.
Last week I was working on a silhouette. I took a (digital) picture
of the person, copied it and used two copies of the same image -- one
mirror image of the other -- so they were facing each other. I
printed the faces in "white" and the space between them in black. I
then used an exacto knife to cut away the white areas leaving me with
just the black area. The profile of the faces were preserved in the
cut-line.
I tried calling what I had left "a photograph" but I in effect, it was
more of a negative of the original image. The only think I really had
left was a representation of what I had NOT photographed, not what I
had photographed. The other thing that I pondered was the fact that
the image was not represented in "b&w" or in some tonality but the
image was represented physically as to whether there was paper there
or not.
I all made me start thinking "is this a photograph or not". Just what
is a photograph in the age of digital printing. How is a digital
image any different than a really pretty Excel document. How much can
you manipulate a "photo" before it becomes something else -- and when
it becomes something else, what does it become?
ChrisM
cae98668-f46a-4921...@f13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com,
Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
Have you been smoking something...??
:-)
Seriously though, some interesting points raised!
--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)
Frank Arthur
"Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:cae98668-f46a-4921...@f13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
As soon as I decipher "What is art" I'll get back to you on "What is a
photograph". In the meantime I will continue with my joy of working
with images as long as my eyes continue to receive light.
Frank
Frank Arthur
"Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:cae98668-f46a-4921...@f13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
In the old days? Depending on how old the days.
Did you start with a piece of clear glass and coat it with a silver
salt mixture imbedded in gelatin? Or did you put a roll of Kodachrome
positive slide film in your camera which was processed by Kodak and
arrived at your door as positive color images mounted in cardboard?
If you developed your own B&W negatives did you ever deliberately heat
the film to cause reticulation and get strange effects? Or exposed the
film part way through developing to make solarized images. Weren't
these all "photographs"?
It seems the two elements needed for photography are "images" and
"light".
All and everything we are now doing today with Digital work is dealing
with "images" and "light". Whether the light is being formed throught
the lens onto a sensor or images manipulated using a scanner. Whether
the images are printed with an Inkjet or viewed on a monitor they
require light to get to your eyes in order to see them. They are all
"photography".
mianileng
"ChrisM" <chris_ma...@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ErydnasxtbzbsLHU...@bt.com...
more than once and sometimes led to heated debate.
To me and to some others, a photograph is a picture taken with a camera,
reproducing the appearance of the subject as faithfully as possible within
reasonable limits. This does not preclude the use of *some* amount of
processing to make the picture appealing and to enhance technical accuracy,
compensating for shortcomings in the camera and exposure errors. But it does
exclude a picture that has been excessively manipulated and altered, such as
by adding something that was not in the original scene or by gross
deliberate distortion of shapes, content, color and light.
This is where opinions differ. Some people argue that a picture always
undergoes some processing and alteration in the camera and in the darkroom
(in film photography), that everyone sees a scene differently and therefore
there's no such thing as an accurate photo, and so on. This camp believes
that a photo is a photo no matter how much of the manipulations described
above has been applied.
I don't think anyone will object to someone creating an artistic picture by
applying any amount of alteration. It's just that some of us think that it
is no longer a photograph.
Steve
If you want to go with the definition of a photograph and not try and
really think about what it means when you creatively alter the image,
the better definitions usually have something in them about capturing
a real scene by some means, whether it's chemically sensitive film or
directly converting photons to energy like in a digital sensor. A
photograph is a graph (a visual or symbolic representation) of the
photons (light) that were captured at a certain place and time.
Once you start creatively altering that graph other than to make it
more faithfully represent the light that struck the sensor and "look
like" what you might have seen with your own eyes at that place and
time, it may be art, it may be a picture, it may be an image but it's
no longer a photograph.
In these days of digital editing, you have to expand that a little
bit. So basically, IMHO, the definition I like to use is that if your
post processing only does things to an original captured image that
could have been done in the physical world at the time the photograph
was captured (like applying color filters, distortions that can be
created with curved mirrors, fisheye lenses, etc.) and things like
sharpening enough to account for lens/sensor softness, fixing bad
exposure problems, etc., then you are still working with a photograph.
But once your image starts depicting things that could either not have
existed in the real world or could not have been photographically
captured in the first place, then you are no longer working with a
photograph.
Steve
Ofnuts
> To me and to some others, a photograph is a picture taken with a camera,
> reproducing the appearance of the subject as faithfully as possible within
> reasonable limits. This does not preclude the use of *some* amount of
> processing to make the picture appealing and to enhance technical accuracy,
> compensating for shortcomings in the camera and exposure errors. But it does
> exclude a picture that has been excessively manipulated and altered, such as
> by adding something that was not in the original scene or by gross
> deliberate distortion of shapes, content, color and light.
My personal criterion would be along the lines that it's a photograph if
it could always have been better with a better camera/body/lens(*).
Otherwise it's just a pretty/interesting picture incidentally made out
of a photograph.
(*) for some virtual value of better, I am not that addicted to
expensive gear, and anyway the relation between picture quality and
camera cost is far from linear.
--
Bertrand
SS
"Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote in message
news:kDXWk.25$dc...@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
In my mind a photograph (picture) is a point and shoot and it is either good
or bad, or somewhere in between.
Using a lot of digital editing (in my mind) is digital painting.
I know I will lose any arguments on this but thats how I see it.
>
>
-hh
>
> If you want to go with the definition of a
> photograph and not try and really think about
> what it means when you creatively alter the image,
> the better definitions usually have something in
> them about capturing a real scene by some means,
> whether it's chemically sensitive film or directly
> converting photons to energy like in a digital sensor.
The slippery slope is the underlying issue of 'some means'.
> A photograph is a graph (a visual or symbolic
> representation) of the photons (light) that were
> captured at a certain place and time.
So if I take a bunch of physical chemicals and use them to
'capture' ... through a 2D representation ... of a discrete physical
view under certain temporal conditions, to what degree is the temporal
variable all that critical? Must it be nothing less than a brief
1/60sec impression of the photons and its subsequent series of
chemical reactions...?
...or can substantially longer temporal inclusion of said photons
being identified be considered, and can they be done so through a
chemical-electrical system which then sends tiny electric impulses
through a network to eventually find their way to the distribution of
varying pigmentation colors on an archival 2D hardcopy medium?
The reason for my obtuse (if not obfuscating) language is that it
intentionally sounds like I was asking the "film vs digital" question
(with digital having a color inkjet print), but if you go back read it
back a second time, you can see that I might actually describing the
process of an artist spending hours to physically spread his paint
pigments on a canvas, thus creating a painting.
> Once you start creatively altering that graph
> other than to make it more faithfully represent
> the light that struck the sensor and "look
> like" what you might have seen with your own
> eyes at that place and time, it may be art,
> it may be a picture, it may be an image but
> it's no longer a photograph.
Devil's Advocate: does this then mean that a Black & White photo is
an "alteration" today, even though back in the days before we had the
technological capability of color photography, it wouldn't have
been?
> ... IMHO, the definition I like to use is that if your
> post processing only does things to an original captured
> image that could have been done in the physical world at
> the time the photograph was captured ... then you are
> still working with a photograph.
> But once your image starts depicting things that could
> either not have existed in the real world or could not
> have been photographically captured in the first place,
> then you are no longer working with a photograph.
A commendably pragmatic approach, although with sufficient
determination, one can probably find some loopholes to abuse.
In general, I think that a similarly pragmatic approach is to
recognize that a photograph generally entails the use of a machine to
assist in the automation of the process of capturing an element
nominally detected through human visual perception. As such, it is
the machine-based automation that tends to differentiate it from the
higher amount of labor (and arguably, skill) required to create a
visually-based rendition through the mediums of a painting, sketch,
drawing, etc.
From there, we can recognize that just as there are different forms of
art in painting (impressionism, realism, cubism, etc), there are
different forms of photography (documentary/realism, interpretive,
abstract, IR, lensbaby, etc) and the term of "photograph" isn't
necessarly in of itself an assurance of 'realism', even though this is
commonly assumed.
-hh
Alan Browne
> Last week I was working on a silhouette.
It's a photograph. You used photons and you made a graphic.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Pat
> "ChrisM" <chris_mayersb...@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ErydnasxtbzbsLHU...@bt.com...
>
> > In message
> > cae98668-f46a-4921-a6c1-1d2b9cf9e...@f13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com,
Look at magazine photos. Are they not photos because they have been
manipulated? All such photos are touched up.
Pat
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:52:40 -0000, "ChrisM"
>
>
>
> >In message
> >cae98668-f46a-4921-a6c1-1d2b9cf9e...@f13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com,
But "back in the day", no one though that airbrushing a photo made it
less of a photo. If you remove a pimple or "unblink" an eye (and no
one can tell the difference), then is it a photo? To some extend,
touch ups might make some photos look MORE realistic.
Pat
wrote:
So a photocopy is a photograph? It uses photons and is graphic. But
it raises an interesting question. Let's say you take a picture of an
wrist watch and you don't do any manipulation outside the camera. You
print it. It's a photograph. But if you take the same wrist watch
and lay it on your photocopier and print it, it's not considered a
photograph. My first thought was that "photograph" needed to include
some human element (say holding a camera) but that's not true. There
are traffic cameras and deer cameras and such that all fire
automatically. So how come I can take a picture with my camera and
print to my all-in-one and it's a photo but if I lay it on the scanner
and use the same all-in-one it is then a photocopy.
J. Clarke
But using analog editing is OK?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Alan Browne
> On Nov 25, 5:08 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca>
> wrote:
>> Pat wrote:
>>> Last week I was working on a silhouette.
>> It's a photograph. You used photons and you made a graphic.
>>
>
> So a photocopy is a photograph? It uses photons and is graphic. But
Yes. By definition a photocopy is a photograph. No "But"s about it.
In fact some artists use them this way.
Now stop with the allusions to philosophical thought and go out and do
photography.
Also, get a proper newsreader that removes properly formatted signatures
(hint: real newsreader remove everything following a "--" marker.
Otherwise remove the sigs yourself.)
Mark Thomas
I think that is pretty much spot on.
>
> But "back in the day", no one though that airbrushing a photo made it
> less of a photo. If you remove a pimple or "unblink" an eye (and no
> one can tell the difference), then is it a photo? To some extend,
> touch ups might make some photos look MORE realistic.
Yes, but that falls into the category "look(ing) like what you might
have seen with your own eyes". Although I would change that to "looking
like what you perceived", given how much brainwork there is involved in
what we 'see'. I have sometimes retouched portraits where the person
was unlucky enough to have a pimple or other temporary condition at the
moment of the portrait. To me that definitely still stands as a
photograph.
>> In these days of digital editing, you have to expand that a little
>> bit. So basically, IMHO, the definition I like to use is that if your
>> post processing only does things to an original captured image that
>> could have been done in the physical world at the time the photograph
>> was captured (like applying color filters, distortions that can be
>> created with curved mirrors, fisheye lenses, etc.) and things like
>> sharpening enough to account for lens/sensor softness, fixing bad
>> exposure problems, etc., then you are still working with a photograph.
>> But once your image starts depicting things that could either not have
>> existed in the real world or could not have been photographically
>> captured in the first place, then you are no longer working with a
>> photograph.
>>
>> Steve
Again, I pretty much agree. I don't think that the definition is very
important except in one way - when there is *purposeful* deceit. In
competitions, or when describing an image, the *process* is (or may be)
important, so if, eg you pasted a silhouetted bird into a sunset rather
than waiting for a real one.. you need to declare that. Same with
replaced skies, etc.
But, then, what if you just digitally removed a piece of rubbish from a
scene (it might have been behind a fence and inaccessible..). Do you
need to declare *that*, and under what circumstances?
It's all very tricky.
As an aside, I must confess I get some enjoyment out of busting
pretenders - there have a been a few notable examples on sites like
Photosig where a 'photographer' falsely described the 'reality' of an
image and then got busted.. (Eg a 'Joshua Tree' that miraculously
appeared in two different locations.. (O:)
Pat
wrote:
Last summer, on the back cover of my mother's AARP magazine, there was
a scene with a lot of water in the foreground. I don't remember the
exact details, but IIRC then there were 4 clouds in the sky and 6
clouds on the reflection in the water -- the four from the sky plus
two more.
Peter
Funny how this issue was rarely raised when the artist painted on a
photograph.
I fail to see the importance of this, unless you are doing pure documentary
photography.
My reason, every photograph is an am impression of what the maker saw. I see
little reason for an arbitrary line.
--
Peter
Peter
news:s_ZWk.32325$9I7...@newsfe19.ams2...
I may well be, digital painting, but so what?
--
Peter
Steve
>Again, I pretty much agree. I don't think that the definition is very
>important except in one way - when there is *purposeful* deceit. In
>competitions, or when describing an image, the *process* is (or may be)
>important, so if, eg you pasted a silhouetted bird into a sunset rather
>than waiting for a real one.. you need to declare that. Same with
>replaced skies, etc.
>
>But, then, what if you just digitally removed a piece of rubbish from a
>scene (it might have been behind a fence and inaccessible..). Do you
>need to declare *that*, and under what circumstances?
>
>It's all very tricky.
For the purposes of competition, things should be declared that might
not necessarily matter when discussing whether something is a
photograph not. For instance, if you digitally removed something that
you could have removed in the real world, but didn't because it's
behind a fence and is inaccessible and did it in such a way that it
looks like it was never there in the first place I'd still consider
that a photograph. But it should be declared for a competition.
I have a wonderful picture of an old steam engine pulling away from a
station but there are overhead wires that detract from the image. I
could have cut them down but that would land me in some trouble. So I
removed them digitally and I still consider it a photograph, probably
because the alterations were so minor.
But on the other hand, when you do something like superimpose a full
moon on a scene where the moon is obviously several times larger than
it would have been if it were captured as it would appear in real
life, then that's no longer a photograph.
Superimposing a bird on a sunset is definitely a gray area though. I
would more than likely consider that not to be a photograph because,
instead of working with what you captured, you're adding something
that wasn't there. But as with anything that's in a gray area, I
could be convinced otherwise.
>As an aside, I must confess I get some enjoyment out of busting
>pretenders - there have a been a few notable examples on sites like
>Photosig where a 'photographer' falsely described the 'reality' of an
>image and then got busted.. (Eg a 'Joshua Tree' that miraculously
>appeared in two different locations.. (O:)
Or recently and famously, the pictures of the Iranian missile test
that were altered by copying and pasting missiles that worked and
sections of their smoke trails over the duds.
Steve
Brian
Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>On Nov 25, 2:51 pm, "mianileng" <mianil...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> "ChrisM" <chris_mayersb...@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ErydnasxtbzbsLHU...@bt.com...
>>
>> > In message
>> > cae98668-f46a-4921-a6c1-1d2b9cf9e...@f13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com,
>> > Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
>>
I wondering what you call a photo that's stright from the camera that
has not been touched up. Maybe there needs to be names for a touched
and a untouched photo.
Roy G
"mianileng" <mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:gghl18$k13$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>> Snipped
> To me and to some others, a photograph is a picture taken with a camera,
>> Edited Out
The above is a fair definition.
Everything that was done in the original post could just as easily have been
done in a darkroom.
Don't forget that using semi transparent negatives never were the only way
of making prints.
Roy G
Roy G
"Steve" <st...@example.com> wrote in message
news:e3ooi41e20dmlvc5s...@4ax.com...
Which means that applying selective tones to the print via waterproof masks,
or combining images from several negatives, or removing unwanted parts using
cardboard masks, stops it from being a photograph.
What about the old timers, circa 1900, when they had to add skies from
bought in plates because their own emulsions were so slow they could not
record cloud detail.
Get real, if it was taken by a camera it is a photograph.
Roy G
Steve
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:56:34 -0000, "Roy G" <roy.g...@virgin.net>
wrote:
Well, according to what I wrote above, those would be photographs.
Because you'd be using some type of processing to enhance what the
camera captured but because of technilogical limitations could not
present the image near as well as what you'd see if you were looking
at it. Same thing as sharpening or exposure fixing today.
Also, removing unwanted parts using cardboard masks is just like
digitally removing unwanted things from images today, which would
still IMHO be a photograph because you could have always removed them
in real life before you shot the picture.
>Get real, if it was taken by a camera it is a photograph.
Well hell, I absolutely agree with that ... as long as the camera is
at least trying to faithfully capture the scene. That's true even if
you apply the strictest definition of what a photograph is.
But once you start playing with things taken by a camera, they may no
longer be photographs. You could have 2 images taken by a camera and
superimpose them in such a way as to make the result no longer a
photograph because it would be impossible to take such an image with a
camera. A great example being superimposing a huge moon, several
times it's natural size, on a scene. Both the moon picture and the
scene could be photographs. But the superimposed result is not.
Although it could be a very pleasing image.
Steve
shiva das
Alan Browne <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> Also, get a proper newsreader that removes properly formatted signatures
> (hint: real newsreader remove everything following a "--" marker.
> Otherwise remove the sigs yourself.)
>
> --
> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
> -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
> -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
> -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
> -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
This smarmy insult from an asshole with a 6-line (5 lines plus marker)
signature. A bit taken with yourself, are you Alan? I thought you
ignored all google groups posts...
Mark Thomas
There have been attempts to provide guidelines or self-regulation over
the years, notably one called 'Foundview'. Google it and you'll see
there was a fair amount of interest and discussion about it, but, if
you'll pardon the pun, it seems to have foundered.
Colin.D
INHO a photograph is a finished image, on paper, projected, whatever,
that the author intended the viewer to see - a 'light graph' meant to
convey a message.
All the previous steps involved up to the final image are not
photographs unless they are the final intended image.
Colin D.
J. Clarke
So let's see, if I took my old Leica and put the 28mm on it and shoot
the scene with the sky masked and then without advancing the film put
the 135 on and shot the sky with the ground masked, so that the moon
appears huge on the double exposure, that's not a "photograph"?
Steve
>Steve wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:56:34 -0000, "Roy G" <roy.g...@virgin.net>
[...]
>> longer be photographs. You could have 2 images taken by a camera
>> and
>> superimpose them in such a way as to make the result no longer a
>> photograph because it would be impossible to take such an image with
>> a
>> camera. A great example being superimposing a huge moon, several
>> times it's natural size, on a scene. Both the moon picture and the
>> scene could be photographs. But the superimposed result is not.
>> Although it could be a very pleasing image.
>
>So let's see, if I took my old Leica and put the 28mm on it and shoot
>the scene with the sky masked and then without advancing the film put
>the 135 on and shot the sky with the ground masked, so that the moon
>appears huge on the double exposure, that's not a "photograph"?
Right. It would be 2 photographs superimposed. It may look great, it
may be art, but it's just as much a "photograph" as if I superimposed
an image of a car onto a camel.
Steve
Pat
> On 2008-11-25 08:13:44 -0800, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> said:
>
> > Years ago, when working in my darkroom, I had a pretty good idea what
> > a photograph was.
>
> of a "photograph" apply as much to a tintype, a daguerrotype, glass
> plate, celluloid film stock, CCD,or CMOS or what ever else might come
> along. It is the manipulation of light (photons "photo" as it were)
> through a lens or lens system (perhaps a pin hole) to be rendered as an
> image. A veritible lightdrawing or photograph.
>
> Technically because color visualization is a function of light, you
> might even say an oil painting is a photograph. Even today artists and
> journalists will use modern methods, as the great masters did to
> produce their art and record historic events. only now that is
> supplemented digitally.
It would seem like an overly broad definition if it includes both
paintings and photocopies as photographs.
Mark Thomas
Having taught photography to beginners, maybe my attitude is skewed a
little, but here's the rub for me.. If I plonked that 'photo' down in
front of a rank beginner and without any further information said "go
out and take one just like it", I would be doing them a disservice.
Although it might be a good learning experience for them!
In the same way, I have a camera magazine that displays an image that is
very clearly a double exposure of exactly that kind, in an article about
night time exposures for beginners. But the image is not described in a
caption, nor was that technique explained in the article! It was
probably just an editorial omission, but in doing that they may have
misled their readers and potentially caused frustration as the naive
photog keeps wondering why *his* moon looks smaller, and is totally
washed out when he does long exposures...
So yes, it's still a photograph, but should be described as a double
exposure if presented in a learning or competitive environment.
If you're selling it as art, do what you like!
Paul Furman
>
>
> Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 25, 2:51 pm, "mianileng" <mianil...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> "ChrisM" <chris_mayersb...@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:ErydnasxtbzbsLHU...@bt.com...
>>>
>>>> In message
>>>> cae98668-f46a-4921-a6c1-1d2b9cf9e...@f13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com,
>>>> Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
>
> I wondering what you call a photo that's stright from the camera that
> has not been touched up. Maybe there needs to be names for a touched
> and a untouched photo.
There's 2 kinds of post-processing:
1) brightness & contrast
This is global stuff like chosing the film, paper or raw conversion
sliders. Everyone does this.
2) burning & dodging
This is manipulation of specific areas. Of course there's gray areas
like a graduated neutral density filter/gradient adjustment and a little
local contrast adjustment isn't as bad as cloning in new info or
air-brushing a negative. Then again, what's the harm in cloning out a
little piece of trash in the corner?
>> Look at magazine photos. Are they not photos because they have been
>> manipulated? All such photos are touched up.
>>
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Paul Furman
Sounds like HDR which meets my criteria of global processing unless it
was some other sky then it's a photo composite, or maybe it is anyways
for a strict definition.
> Also, removing unwanted parts using cardboard masks is just like
> digitally removing unwanted things from images today, which would
> still IMHO be a photograph because you could have always removed them
> in real life before you shot the picture.
>
>> Get real, if it was taken by a camera it is a photograph.
>
> Well hell, I absolutely agree with that ... as long as the camera is
> at least trying to faithfully capture the scene. That's true even if
> you apply the strictest definition of what a photograph is.
>
> But once you start playing with things taken by a camera, they may no
> longer be photographs. You could have 2 images taken by a camera and
> superimpose them in such a way as to make the result no longer a
> photograph because it would be impossible to take such an image with a
> camera. A great example being superimposing a huge moon, several
> times it's natural size, on a scene. Both the moon picture and the
> scene could be photographs. But the superimposed result is not.
> Although it could be a very pleasing image.
>
> Steve
Paul Furman
>
> So let's see, if I took my old Leica and put the 28mm on it and shoot
> the scene with the sky masked and then without advancing the film put
> the 135 on and shot the sky with the ground masked, so that the moon
> appears huge on the double exposure, that's not a "photograph"?
'photo-composite'
Surfer!
<bcl...@es.co.nz> writes
>
>
>
>Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 25, 2:51 pm, "mianileng" <mianil...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> "ChrisM" <chris_mayersb...@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:ErydnasxtbzbsLHU...@bt.com...
>>>
>>> > In message
>>> > cae98668-f46a-4921-a6c1-1d2b9cf9e...@f13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com,
>>> > Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
>>>
>I wondering what you call a photo that's stright from the camera that
>has not been touched up. Maybe there needs to be names for a touched
>and a untouched photo.
>
very least it does colour balance and sharpening, and usually noise
reduction and I'm sure there are other things it does.
--
Surfer!
Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net
Ron Hunter
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:52:40 -0000, "ChrisM"
> <chris_ma...@suedeyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> In message
>> cae98668-f46a-4921...@f13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com,
J. Clarke
> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> So let's see, if I took my old Leica and put the 28mm on it and
>> shoot
>> the scene with the sky masked and then without advancing the film
>> put
>> the 135 on and shot the sky with the ground masked, so that the
>> moon
>> appears huge on the double exposure, that's not a "photograph"?
>
> 'photo-composite'
I see. Does any recognized dictionary agree with you on this?
Roy G
"Savageduck" <savag...@savage.net> wrote in message
news:2008112521161950073-savageduck@savagenet...
> etchings etc. photographs. However any image created using a lens system,
> simple or complex to permit light to draw or "graph" it could be deemed a
> photograph.
>
> Just because technology has moved on from daguerrotype, to tintype, to
> sensor; from cloth covered chemical bath, to darkroom, to CS4, doesn't
> mean that the image produced by each age of development shouldn't be
> called a photograph.
> An audio recording of a symphony on a wax cylinder, a shellac or vinyl
> disc, tape or digital media remains just that.
>
Yep.
That is a spot on definition.
All these others who are trying to add "faithfull likeness", etc, are just
attempting to hold back photography to what they think it used to be.
The truth is that from almost day one in photography images were being
manipulated.
Roy G
mianileng
"Roy G" <roy.g...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:ZHbXk.1605$fg7...@newsfe21.ams2...
material as long as it is presented as a creation. Or to *some* manipulation
as long as the object of such manipulation is to represent the subject as
it/they appear in nature. The disagreement is in the degree of manipulation.
The fact that it is difficult to precisely define the degree of acceptable
manipulation before it is no longer a photograph does not make the judgment
any less valid. Driving at 90 mph on a narrow twisting road is too fast to
be called safe driving even if there's no official speed limit.
whisky-dave
"ChrisM" <chris_ma...@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ErydnasxtbzbsLHU...@bt.com...
> In message
> cae98668-f46a-4921...@f13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com,
> Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
>
>
> Have you been smoking something...??
Those sort of questions come up after snorting hypo and rubbing yuor
testicals
in stop solution. ;-)
mianileng
"Savageduck" <savag...@savage.net> wrote in message
news:2008112521161950073-savageduck@savagenet...
> On 2008-11-25 19:49:46 -0800, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> said:
>
> etchings etc. photographs. However any image created using a lens system,
> simple or complex to permit light to draw or "graph" it could be deemed a
> photograph.
>
> Just because technology has moved on from daguerrotype, to tintype, to
> sensor; from cloth covered chemical bath, to darkroom, to CS4, doesn't
> mean that the image produced by each age of development shouldn't be
> called a photograph.
> An audio recording of a symphony on a wax cylinder, a shellac or vinyl
> disc, tape or digital media remains just that.
>
painting if it is not done on canvas with oil paint, THEN recording audio on
different media with different technologies would be a valid analogy.
An audio recording on any medium, after any amount of manipulation, is still
a recording because the word recording defines only the final process of
preservation. It is more analogous to the saving of a computer file.
Pat
> Years ago, when working in my darkroom, I had a pretty good idea what
The more I think about it, the more I think the definition of
photography has to include "intent". You have to intend to take a
photograph.
I had a magazine laying on top of a newspaper. When I removed the
magazine it, the newspaper had a representation of the magazine on
it. It was done with light. Mechanically it meets the broad
definition of a photograph, but it isn't one. There was no intent to
take it. It's just a few lines on old newsprint.
Likewise, Ansel Adams took photographs. But someone working for a
poster company took a picture of an AA picture and reproduced it as a
poster. It used a camera and printing technique -- and it was a
tremendously faithful representation of the image. But again it isn't
a photograph. It's a reproduction. It's a poster. There was no
intent to put any creative or new into the image. In fact, the intent
would have been to NOT do so. This blows the "faithful reproduction"
argument right out of the water. And if "faithful representation" is
the goal, why do everyone own photoshop and use all of the bells and
whistles?
Meanwhile, look at magazines. Every photo in them is retouched. The
remove backgrounds. They fix faces. They do it all. But they are
photos none-the-less. My mother had a magazine this summer when an ad
on the back page had a large amount of water in the foreground. The
clouds in the sky and the clouds in the water weren't the same. But
it was a photo.
Then there's the whole issue of capturing something the way it looks.
Does adding lighting make it more or less of a photo? What about
makeup?
How come it I photocopy my annual budget it's not a photograph but if
I photocopy my butt, it is? It's the same technology. Again, it's a
matter of intent.
After pondering this for a while and reading all of the comments, I
think I'm coming closer to a feeling of what a photograph is. It has
nothing to do with equipment or "realism" or alterations. "It a
visual image that a photographer produces from a captured image. It
represents the photographer interpretation of the subject." I think
this sums it up because you need three elements: capture, production
and interpretation/intent.
J. Clarke
So a second generation print is no longer a photograph?
--
whisky-dave
"Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:cae98668-f46a-4921...@f13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> Years ago, when working in my darkroom, I had a pretty good idea what
> a photograph was.
I thought it was a graphical image, produced by light and leaving a
graphical image,
where even a straight line can be considered a graphical image.
It's the bit by photons/light that make it a photo, and remember there's no
f in
photograph :)
Peter
news:ggjvgd$14t$1@qmul...
Groan
--
Peter
Frank Arthur
manipulations, selections and choices in order to obtain my
interpretation of what that image will be. And every one is a
photograph.
"Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:cae98668-f46a-4921...@f13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> Years ago, when working in my darkroom, I had a pretty good idea
> what
JC Dill
> I wondering what you call a photo that's stright from the camera that
> has not been touched up. Maybe there needs to be names for a touched
> and a untouched photo.
There is no such thing as an unprocessed or "untouched photo" because
the camera shoots in a raw format, then converts to jpeg with settings
programmed into the camera. The only difference between that image and
the one you convert in your raw converter of choice is who programs the
settings to convert the photo - the photographer or the person who
programmed the camera. And obviously the photographer is better
situated to make the adjustments necessary to render the photo correctly
for the scene.
jc
Alan Browne
> In article <lP-dnXD9oMAGFLHU...@giganews.com>, Alan
> Browne <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> Also, get a proper newsreader that removes properly formatted
>> signatures (hint: real newsreader remove everything following a
>> "--" marker. Otherwise remove the sigs yourself.)
>>
> This smarmy insult from an asshole with a 6-line (5 lines plus
> marker) signature. A bit taken with yourself, are you Alan? I thought
> you ignored all google groups posts...
It is not a smarmy insult. It is a request to comply with common
netiquette for usenet.
There is nothing wrong with my sig as it is properly formatted to be
removed by real usenet readers on reply.
As far as my usenet reader can filter, yes Googlegroups is removed on an
e-mail address basis. And the next v. of the reader will have more
options to filter more sharply. Should be released in the coming weeks.
As a result perhaps you'll disappear from my universe and entropy will
be briefly reversed.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
The Royal Spam
What if you use film and scan it?
Alan Browne
> I wondering what you call a photo that's stright from the camera that
> has not been touched up. Maybe there needs to be names for a touched
> and a untouched photo.
In photo club circles the standard is "unmanipulated" which still allows
for contrast, sharpening, tone and other minor adjustments.
In a legal sense the 'least touched' digital image would be the raw
file. But even then I'm not sure, absent a witnessed chain of custody,
how untouched a court might consider it.
A photo from a raw file is touched as soon as it's imported into an
editing program as the input parameters of s/w like ACR directly affect
the image (though there are neutral settings and ACR starts at the
setting from the camera in most cases).
The only 'untouched' photographic images that exist are on exposed film
which further could only be considered untouched if the development
process was conventional for the film type.
Pat
No, that's why it's called a print.
JC Dill
Same issue - the scan needs to be processed into an image. There is no
one-size-fits-all processing that works for all film. Different
films/slides need different processing, and the correct processing will
also depend on how the film or slide was processed in the first place.
In the film days, we made a test strip before making a print, and then
after making a print we usually made another one with sections that we
burned or dodged. All of that processing was SOP for making a
photograph. Today we do it on the computer rather than in the darkroom
but the result is no less a photograph.
jc
shiva das
Alan Browne <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> The only 'untouched' photographic images that exist are on exposed film
> which further could only be considered untouched if the development
> process was conventional for the film type.
Technically what you are describing is a latent image -- there will be
no actual image until the emulsion is developed and the unexposed areas
cleared of silver (in black & white film -- there are more steps for
color and transparencies, but the concept is the same). If the latent
image is exposed to more light it will be destroyed.
In other words until the process invented by William Henry Fox Talbot is
used to "fix" the image it can not be used to make prints.
For the record: I have absolutely no opinion on the subject of what is
or is not a photograph. I'm too busy making photos to worry about it.
But these freshman philosophical discussions can be fun every once in a
while.
Vance
> In article <zYadnSwI6rRrdLDUnZ2dnUVZ_uedn...@giganews.com>,
Freshman? I was leaning to sophmoric.
Vance
Peter
news:zYadnSwI6rRrdLDU...@giganews.com...
>
> In photo club circles the standard is "unmanipulated" which still allows
> for contrast, sharpening, tone and other minor adjustments.
>
Depends on the club. Depends on the category. Nature category has rules
similar to what you describe. Open category definitely does not, at least
here and in New England. More than once I have heard judges comment that the
image would look much better if it were reversed, or stating that on some
images a person ought to be placed at a strategic location to add a center
of interest. I am not familiar with the rules and practices in other parts
of the country.
--
Peter
Chris Malcolm
> Brian wrote:
>> I wondering what you call a photo that's stright from the camera that
>> has not been touched up. Maybe there needs to be names for a touched
>> and a untouched photo.
> In photo club circles the standard is "unmanipulated" which still allows
> for contrast, sharpening, tone and other minor adjustments.
> In a legal sense the 'least touched' digital image would be the raw
> file. But even then I'm not sure, absent a witnessed chain of custody,
> how untouched a court might consider it.
> A photo from a raw file is touched as soon as it's imported into an
> editing program as the input parameters of s/w like ACR directly affect
> the image (though there are neutral settings and ACR starts at the
> setting from the camera in most cases).
> The only 'untouched' photographic images that exist are on exposed film
> which further could only be considered untouched if the development
> process was conventional for the film type.
The normal film development process sharpens edges, as a consequence
of the combination of speeds of exhaustion, diffusion, and agitation
timings. If you then print the image on photographic paper a further
element of sharpening is added for the same reasons in the process of
developing the print.
--
Chris Malcolm
J. Clarke
I'm not seeing the post to which you responded, so commenting here.
What is "conventional for the film type"? For example, processing
Tri-X (or Plus X or Pan X or whatever I'm forgetting) in Microdol,
Dektol, or HC-110 at any of several different concentrations would all
be "conventional for the film type", but they give different results.
And then there's agitation . . .
Celcius
"Savageduck" <savag...@savage.net> wrote in message
news:2008112521161950073-savageduck@savagenet...
> On 2008-11-25 19:49:46 -0800, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> said:
>
>> On Nov 25, 10:37 pm, Savageduck <savaged...@savage.net> wrote:
>>> On 2008-11-25 08:13:44 -0800, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> said:
>>>
>>>> a photograph was.
>>>
>>> of a "photograph" apply as much to a tintype, a daguerrotype, glass
>>> plate, celluloid film stock, CCD,or CMOS or what ever else might come
>>> along. It is the manipulation of light (photons "photo" as it were)
>>> through a lens or lens system (perhaps a pin hole) to be rendered as an
>>> image. A veritible lightdrawing or photograph.
>>>
>>> Technically because color visualization is a function of light, you
>>> might even say an oil painting is a photograph. Even today artists and
>>> journalists will use modern methods, as the great masters did to
>>> produce their art and record historic events. only now that is
>>> supplemented digitally.
>>
>> It would seem like an overly broad definition if it includes both
>> paintings and photocopies as photographs.
>
> Just an extreme argument. Certainly it is ridiculous to call paintings
> etchings etc. photographs.
I'm not so sure about this.
Certain paintings are so **exact in reproducing forms and colour** that they
are deemed to be "photographs".
Painting is usually seen as what I would call for lack of a better word,
"interpretative". The artist either creates a mood (not necessarily
reproducing the scene) or an "impression" or a statement... In the last case
(and there are others), one needs to know more about the artist to be able
to decipher / understand / appreciate the art work.
In the field of painting, exact reproduction is deemed to be a "photograph"
and is not appreciated.
Cheers,
Marcel
J. Clarke
Deemed by who and do you have documentation to support that
contention?
> Painting is usually seen as what I would call for lack of a better
> word, "interpretative". The artist either creates a mood (not
> necessarily reproducing the scene) or an "impression" or a
> statement... In the last case (and there are others), one needs to
> know more about the artist to be able to decipher / understand /
> appreciate the art work.
Sounds like you've been talking to "connoisseurs" and not to working
artists.
> In the field of painting, exact reproduction is deemed to be a
> "photograph" and is not appreciated.
Tell that to Rembrandt, van Eyck, and most of the other Dutch Masters.
For that matter, you might find Picasso's early work enlightening.
No, he's not famous for it but he wouldn't be famous without it--if he
hadn't proved his chops with conventional work then his cutting edge
stuff would have been ignored.
-hh
>
> There is nothing wrong with my sig as it is properly formatted to
> be removed by real usenet readers on reply.
Actually, your .sig delimiter is "--", whereas it is supposed to be
"-- " as per son-of-rfc1036. As such, there is something wrong with
your .sig: it is incorrectly formatted.
As per son-of-rfc 1036, the .sig delimiter line is only two hyphens
(ASCII 45) followed by one blank (ASCII 32) and yours is missing the
blank: its not supposed to be "--", but rather "-- ".
Similarly, your 6 line length exceeds the McQuary limit (4 lines of at
most 80 characters each)
> As a result perhaps you'll disappear from my universe and entropy will
> be briefly reversed.
Since you're explicitly interested in compliance to common netiquette
for usenet, please remember that charity starts at home and lead by
example.
-hh
Celcius
> of the thread my initial extreme argument was based not so much on
> photo-realism, but the manipulation for light required by physics to
> produce an image. The quality of each of the materials and mixed tints,
> chalks, pastels, watercolor, oil or acrylics to absorb different
> wavelengths of light to demonstrate to the human eye a color is a function
> of light. Given that, the extreme argument could call all paintings "light
> drawings" or "photographs."
>
> There are certainly artists, some of the Dutch Masters come to mind who
> have produce works which have been described as "photo-real" by those
> aware of photography as we know it. I doubt if any of their contemporaries
> described those works in photographic terms, they were just in awe of
> thier artistic skill to create an illusion of realism. Check Van Eyck,
> Vermeer, Van Wittel and to some extent Rembrant. I still think it might be
> a little silly to actually call these works "photographs."
>
> So to depart from the extreme argument, I think it is safe to say a
> "photograph" is an image, produced by a lens system onto whatever the
> medium might be. That would include drawings and paintings produced with
> the aid of a Camera Obscura.
>
> To say the original subject should be represented, true to life, without
> manipulation to be called a photograph, is an unrealistic fantasy given
> the distortion imparted by most lenses. This relates to DOF, bokeh,
> vignetting, pincussion, barrel and other distortions imparted to the
> recording medium long before any post processing or manipulating is even
> thought of. Ultimately they are all expresions of the artist-photographer.
> Try creating a perfect architectural photograph and discover the problems
> photographers and lens manufacturers have had to deal with since day one.
>
> Photography is an art-science.
>
> So they are all photographs.
>
> "duck
>
You're absolutely right.
Furthermore, for fun, I consulted a few dictionaries published before 1980.
By and large, all said that a photograph was a picture made by a camera
through a lens and talked about emulsion on a film, plate, etc. Obviously,
digital photography changed all that.
Interestingly, one should note that what we see may not be what is / exists.
Colours are different depending of light or medium. For example, underwater,
reds fade fast with depth. Colour blindness give people a different
perspective on a particular scenery.
The other problem is that the eye adjusts more faithfully (if we can use the
term) to a particulat situation than the lens. This is where Photoshop comes
in .-))) The whole matter is to try to reproduce the scene as remembered.
This is where we get into all this discussion. We then get into Spyder
Utilities, different screens and what not.
Of course, there is also the art aspect: making a black and white out of a
colour photograph or in a colour photograph turned B & W, to isolate a
particular thing which one keeps in colour... etc., etc.
I think the important thing is not to fool the onlooker. If tricks are used,
it should be clear.
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> There is nothing wrong with my sig as it is properly formatted to
>> be removed by real usenet readers on reply.
>
> Actually, your .sig delimiter is "--", whereas it is supposed to be
> "-- " as per son-of-rfc1036. As such, there is something wrong with
> your .sig: it is incorrectly formatted.
>
> As per son-of-rfc 1036, the .sig delimiter line is only two hyphens
> (ASCII 45) followed by one blank (ASCII 32) and yours is missing the
> blank: its not supposed to be "--", but rather "-- ".
The extra space is indeed there.
I'd say "nice try" but it was in fact quite pathetic.
ChrisM
Colin.D <nos...@nowhere.com> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
> Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Brian wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Nov 25, 2:51 pm, "mianileng" <mianil...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> "ChrisM" <chris_mayersb...@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> news:ErydnasxtbzbsLHU...@bt.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message
>>>>>> cae98668-f46a-4921-a6c1-1d2b9cf9e...@f13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com,
>>>>>> Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> Proclaimed from the tallest
>>>>>> tower:
>>> I wondering what you call a photo that's stright from the camera
>>> that has not been touched up. Maybe there needs to be names for a
>>> touched and a untouched photo.
>>>
>>>> Look at magazine photos. Are they not photos because they have
>>>> been manipulated? All such photos are touched up.
>>>>
>>
>> There have been attempts to provide guidelines or self-regulation
>> over the years, notably one called 'Foundview'. Google it and
>> you'll see there was a fair amount of interest and discussion about
>> it, but, if you'll pardon the pun, it seems to have foundered.
>
> INHO a photograph is a finished image, on paper, projected, whatever,
> that the author intended the viewer to see - a 'light graph' meant to
> convey a message.
>
> All the previous steps involved up to the final image are not
> photographs unless they are the final intended image.
>
> Colin D.
Does your definition of a 'photograph' include images that have been heavily
modified (eg adding objects into the image that were not present in the
original scene)?
(For example, a composite image showing a shark swallowing a bus)
--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)
-hh
> -hh wrote:
> > Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> >> There is nothing wrong with my sig as it is properly formatted to
> >> be removed by real usenet readers on reply.
>
> > Actually, your .sig delimiter is "--", whereas it is supposed to be
> > "-- " as per son-of-rfc1036. As such, there is something wrong with
> > your .sig: it is incorrectly formatted.
>
> > As per son-of-rfc 1036, the .sig delimiter line is only two hyphens
> > (ASCII 45) followed by one blank (ASCII 32) and yours is missing the
> > blank: its not supposed to be "--", but rather "-- ".
>
> The extra space is indeed there.
My apologies, you're correct. An attribute of pesky proportional
fonts.
> I'd say "nice try" but it was in fact quite pathetic.
Nevertheless, you're still exceeding the tradition of 4 lines max.
Into the killfile with ye.
-hh
Mark Thomas
> I think the important thing is not to fool the onlooker. If tricks are used,
> it should be clear.
Bravo! The nub..
tony cooper
The photo club which I attend, which has about 500 members, uses these
rules:
----------------
Color Images – acceptable for inclusion whether or not they have
undergone digital manipulation.
Monochromatic Images – acceptable for inclusion whether or not they
have undergone digital manipulation. The desaturation of a color image
to make it monochromatic is acceptable, provided the desaturation is
complete and not selective. Only color images that are completely
desaturated should be entered in this category. Any partially
desaturated images that result in a mixed color/monochrome image are
not allowed in this category, and should be entered as a Color Image.
The definition of Monochrome includes sepia toning prints, or any
other single color toning.
-----------------
Entries have been submitted, and judged, that are clearly Photoshop
compositions. Some have been collages. They don't tend to score
high, but they are definitely allowed. The judges are members who are
professional photographers; sometimes from this club and sometimes
from other clubs. Month-before-last the judging for the digital
entries was done by a photo club in Scotland.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter
news:i17ui4htp53mm27rm...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 00:10:17 -0500, "Peter"
> <pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>
>>"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>news:zYadnSwI6rRrdLDU...@giganews.com...
>>
>>>
>>> In photo club circles the standard is "unmanipulated" which still allows
>>> for contrast, sharpening, tone and other minor adjustments.
>>>
>>Depends on the club. Depends on the category. Nature category has rules
>>similar to what you describe. Open category definitely does not, at least
>>here and in New England. More than once I have heard judges comment that
>>the
>>image would look much better if it were reversed, or stating that on some
>>images a person ought to be placed at a strategic location to add a center
>>of interest. I am not familiar with the rules and practices in other parts
>>of the country.
>
> The photo club which I attend, which has about 500 members, uses these
> rules:
> ----------------
> undergone digital manipulation.
Our rule is similar.
>
> Monochromatic Images - acceptable for inclusion whether or not they
> have undergone digital manipulation. The desaturation of a color image
> to make it monochromatic is acceptable, provided the desaturation is
> complete and not selective. Only color images that are completely
> desaturated should be entered in this category. Any partially
> desaturated images that result in a mixed color/monochrome image are
> not allowed in this category, and should be entered as a Color Image.
> The definition of Monochrome includes sepia toning prints, or any
> other single color toning.
We allow one accent color to monochromes. Before digital, accent colors were
frequently hand painted.
>Month-before-last the judging for the digital
> entries was done by a photo club in Scotland.
>
What an interesting concept. While have some members who are very
competative, most submit just to hear the comments and feeback. I will
mention that idea to our board.
Our local clubs are organized under an umbrella organization. Some of them
have no competitions, just critiques. IMHO the work of their members is
superb.
--
Peter
tony cooper
The members of the camera club travel quite a bit and seem to meet
camera club members from several other places. It can be a problem
having the same judges each month, so they work out "guest" judge
exchanges. We've had judges from several different countries, states,
and towns. Since it's a digital-only competition, it works out fine.
You really get a different perspective with a fresh set of judges.
The "house" judges get too predictable.
mianileng
"Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote in message
news:bLgXk.460$UI2...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> Every image I ever made with a camera required a number of
> manipulations, selections and choices in order to obtain my
> interpretation of what that image will be. And every one is a
> photograph.
>
>
Those of us who think that a grossly altered image is no longer a
photograph do not object to a certain amount of adjustment. It is
only when excessive manipulation causes major changes in content
and appearance that it is no longer a photograph.
Why is it that the "anything goes" brigade often chooses to
ignore the above qualifications which have been stated often
enough? In-camera processing and minor corrections in PP are not
the same thing as *major* alterations to suit one's artistic
objective. The key word is "major".
When careful unobstrusive restoration is done to an old master
painting, that does not make the painting any less the work of
the original artist. But if the restorer makes significant
changes in style and content, then it is no longer wholly the
work of the original artist.
When a picture of a model is shown on the cover of a magazine,
the original background substituted with a different one, with
insets and anything else the editors want to include, the picture
of the model is still a photograph unless it was heavily altered.
But the whole page is NOT a photograph of the model. It is a
creation using photographs.
Surfer!
<mian...@invalid.invalid> writes
>
>"Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote in message
>news:bLgXk.460$UI2...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> Every image I ever made with a camera required a number of
>> manipulations, selections and choices in order to obtain my
>> interpretation of what that image will be. And every one is a
>> photograph.
>>
>>
>Those of us who think that a grossly altered image is no longer a
>photograph do not object to a certain amount of adjustment. It is
>only when excessive manipulation causes major changes in content
>and appearance that it is no longer a photograph.
It's very simple so far as I am concerned. If the original (or
originals) were made by the action of light (any source) on some kind of
light-sensitive substrate then it's some kind of photography. However
much or however little it's been manipulated and however many images are
or are not combined, I'd still call it photography.
I only struggle when the item is a mixture of the above plus art work -
someone drawing or painting.
Is it art? If the creator says it is then it is, even if I don't think
it's good art.
But really it's much more fun to get on with producing photographs or
whatever, or go flying, than discuss what is an is not a photograph, or
art!
--
Surfer!
Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net
Celcius
"mianileng" <mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:ggoe4o$b3d$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>
> "Frank Arthur" <A...@Arthurian.com> wrote in message
> news:bLgXk.460$UI2...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> Every image I ever made with a camera required a number of manipulations,
>> selections and choices in order to obtain my interpretation of what that
>> image will be. And every one is a photograph.
>>
>>
> Those of us who think that a grossly altered image is no longer a
> photograph do not object to a certain amount of adjustment. It is only
> when excessive manipulation causes major changes in content and appearance
> that it is no longer a photograph.
>
Be the judge of this one. We walked part of the way to Compostela (250 km)
this Fall. Back at home, we looked at our photos and my wife loved one
particularly, because it showed the immensity of the plain and the route we
had to follow. My wife was the closest person we could see on that dirt
road. I was the one who took the photo. (Canon A650). She said it was too
bad that I wasn't in the photo. After all, I was there... She wanted to blow
up the photo and have it laminated. So I took my wife and myself "out" of 2
other photos where we were dressed the same way and pasted us in the one
where she appeared very small at the forefront. I added our shadows and
Voilà! The final photo was cropped at 1920 x 1200 for our desktop.
Take a look at the "before and after":
http://picasaweb.google.fr/cosmar38/Alterations#
Is this a photograph? I think so. Had someone else taken the photo, it would
have been this way. We were both walking, she in front, and the scene was
exactly as taken. Of course, I tell those who look at it that it was
tricked. ;-)
Take care,
Marcel
Peter
news:ggoe4o$b3d$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>
> Those of us who think that a grossly altered image is no longer a
> photograph do not object to a certain amount of adjustment. It is only
> when excessive manipulation causes major changes in content and appearance
> that it is no longer a photograph.
>
> Why is it that the "anything goes" brigade often chooses to ignore the
> above qualifications which have been stated often enough? In-camera
> processing and minor corrections in PP are not the same thing as *major*
> alterations to suit one's artistic objective. The key word is "major".
>
Why is the definition so important to you.
I applaud the comment of Surfer in the immediately following posting
mailto:ggoe4o$b3d$1...@news.motzarella.org:
"But really it's much more fun to get on with producing photographs or
whatever, or go flying, than discuss what is an is not a photograph, or
art!"
--
Peter
Celcius
"Peter" <pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:492fe9cb$0$31214$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...
I guess it's like making love: there's room to actually DO it or TALK about
it.
Sometimes TALKING about it leads to DOING it ;-)))))
It's not mutually exclusive.
Marcel
mianileng
"Peter" <pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:492fe9cb$0$31214$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...
> news:ggoe4o$b3d$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>>
>
>> Those of us who think that a grossly altered image is no
>> longer a
>> photograph do not object to a certain amount of adjustment. It
>> is only
>> when excessive manipulation causes major changes in content
>> and appearance
>> that it is no longer a photograph.
>>
>> Why is it that the "anything goes" brigade often chooses to
>> ignore the
>> above qualifications which have been stated often enough?
>> In-camera
>> processing and minor corrections in PP are not the same thing
>> as *major*
>> alterations to suit one's artistic objective. The key word is
>> "major".
>>
>
> Why is the definition so important to you.
Please remember that I was not the one who started this thread
and brought up the issue. But since the question did arise, I
just stated my viewpoint. And the definition can be important in
some situations, such as when trying to judge how good a camera
or a person is at *taking* pictures, not creating them.
> I applaud the comment of Surfer in the immediately following
> posting
> mailto:ggoe4o$b3d$1...@news.motzarella.org:
>
> "But really it's much more fun to get on with producing
> photographs or
> whatever, or go flying, than discuss what is an is not a
> photograph, or
> art!"
>
Of course. I don't disagree with that. In fact, I couldn't agree
more. Nevertheless, it doesn't mean that the definition is not
important and does not merit discussion.
Peter
> The members of the camera club travel quite a bit and seem to meet
> camera club members from several other places. It can be a problem
> having the same judges each month, so they work out "guest" judge
> exchanges. We've had judges from several different countries, states,
> and towns. Since it's a digital-only competition, it works out fine.
>
> You really get a different perspective with a fresh set of judges.
> The "house" judges get too predictable.
>
Do they give you a critique, or just a score?
We have a pool of about 50 judges from different local clubs. I have become
friendly with a professional photo artist from another area. She had been
requested to judge a CC competition. Neither she nor the club was happy with
the result because as all too often happens, CC "rules" and "standards" are
inconsistent with the concept of art, when they slavishly followed, rather
than being used as guidelines.
Too many CC judges slavishly follow the "rules"
<\end mini rant>
--
Peter
Peter
>
> "Peter" <pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:492fe9cb$0$31214$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "mianileng" <mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:ggoe4o$b3d$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>
>>> Those of us who think that a grossly altered image is no longer a
>>> photograph do not object to a certain amount of adjustment. It is only
>>> when excessive manipulation causes major changes in content and
>>> appearance
>>> that it is no longer a photograph.
>>>
>>> Why is it that the "anything goes" brigade often chooses to ignore the
>>> above qualifications which have been stated often enough? In-camera
>>> processing and minor corrections in PP are not the same thing as
>>> *major*
>>> alterations to suit one's artistic objective. The key word is "major".
>>>
>>
>> Why is the definition so important to you.
>
> Please remember that I was not the one who started this thread and brought
> up the issue. But since the question did arise, I just stated my
> viewpoint. And the definition can be important in some situations, such as
> when trying to judge how good a camera or a person is at *taking*
> pictures, not creating them.
If the maker is making a documentary shot, I totally agree with you.
Otherwise, I think
that's a distinction without a difference,
--
Peter
Roy G
> "mianileng" <mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ggosc3$te$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>>
>> "Peter" <pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:492fe9cb$0$31214$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...
>>> "mianileng" <mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:ggoe4o$b3d$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Those of us who think that a grossly altered image is no longer a
>>>> photograph do not object to a certain amount of adjustment. It is only
>>>> when excessive manipulation causes major changes in content and
>>>> appearance
>>>> that it is no longer a photograph.
>>>>
>>>> Why is it that the "anything goes" brigade often chooses to ignore the
>>>> above qualifications which have been stated often enough?
Because what you state above is only your opinion. It is in no way a "Rule"
or "Law of Nature".
The rest of us believe that the amount of manipulation applied, or not, is
of no relevance whatsoever to the end product being a Photograph.
If you care to read the rules of the Photographic Society of America, (PSA),
or Photographic Alliance of Great Britain, (PAGB), regarding photographic
competitions I think you will find that there are no restrictions on
processing or manipulation in any of the general categories.
If those august bodies have no objections what gives you the right to object
when someone does not conform to your narrow qualifications.
Roy G
tony cooper
<pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:6pjui4l3ppasdg58s...@4ax.com...
>
>> The members of the camera club travel quite a bit and seem to meet
>> camera club members from several other places. It can be a problem
>> having the same judges each month, so they work out "guest" judge
>> exchanges. We've had judges from several different countries, states,
>> and towns. Since it's a digital-only competition, it works out fine.
>>
>> You really get a different perspective with a fresh set of judges.
>> The "house" judges get too predictable.
>>
>
>Do they give you a critique, or just a score?
Both. Some judge's critiques are better than other's.
The problem with a large club and a lot of entries is that each must
be critiqued. Some entries really can't support a critique other than
"It's an uninteresting subject that was poorly photographed". It's a
social club too, though, so the judges have to come with something
good about it.
David
"Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:cae98668-f46a-4921...@f13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> Years ago, when working in my darkroom, I had a pretty good idea what
> in an enlarger, shone light on a piece of light-sensitive paper, and
> developed that. When you got done you had a photograph. You could
> add elements, dodge, burn, screw with chemicals or make lithos; but in
> the end it all came down to shining light on a piece of paper and
> getting a print.
>
> Last week I was working on a silhouette. I took a (digital) picture
> of the person, copied it and used two copies of the same image -- one
> mirror image of the other -- so they were facing each other. I
> printed the faces in "white" and the space between them in black. I
> then used an exacto knife to cut away the white areas leaving me with
> just the black area. The profile of the faces were preserved in the
> cut-line.
>
> I tried calling what I had left "a photograph" but I in effect, it was
> more of a negative of the original image. The only think I really had
> left was a representation of what I had NOT photographed, not what I
> had photographed. The other thing that I pondered was the fact that
> the image was not represented in "b&w" or in some tonality but the
> image was represented physically as to whether there was paper there
> or not.
>
> I all made me start thinking "is this a photograph or not". Just what
> is a photograph in the age of digital printing. How is a digital
> image any different than a really pretty Excel document. How much can
> you manipulate a "photo" before it becomes something else -- and when
> it becomes something else, what does it become?
Very nice. I think today the term photograph is mis-understood and mis-used,
especially in digital. As far as im concerned if someone uses programs such
as photomatix to produce what is basically a computer generated 'image' from
a photograph. The final image is definately not a photo. Why trust a program
like this which is like a photograph mangle!
As soon as a photograph becomes unrealistic by using 'cheats' in Photoshop
such as basically anything which cannot be done in a darkroom then again
that photo becomes an digitally generated 'image.
A photograph should be pure with absolutely the minimum necessary
manipulation.
Again its all about opinions.
Last year a very badly and over manipulated 'image' won a local photography
competition. After protesting against this, this years criteria has been
tightened, but where do we draw a line. This is something i've often
scratched my head over in disappointment. I remember another 'photography'
competition where the winning entry was a 'image' which used a variety of
complex photoshop techniques to get the final image, my arguement is that
the winner was not a photograph but a digially generated and 'unreal' never
happened scene. There is a huge difference and I wish photography was kept
seperate from digially generated images from programs like photoshop and its
huge array of wizadry pixel generators.
Surfer!
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
Some judges are kind enough to say something along the lines of 'I can
see what you saw', or 'It's an interesting idea' before they hand out a
score of 11 or similar - our marks are out of 20. Some judges give the
best entry 20 regardless of quality (so in a better grade comp it
wouldn't get 20), others give 18 or 19.
J. Clarke
That ship has sailed, hit an iceberg, and sunk.
Peter
news:4fTXk.4431$Cb....@newsfe18.ams2...
Just a minor point. Somehow in your snipping you have me saying something I
never said. In fact, my posting was probably in agreement with you.
--
Peter
tony cooper
>In article <ggon4n$l15$1...@news.motzarella.org>,
> "Celcius" <celc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Be the judge of this one. We walked part of the way to Compostela (250 km)
>> this Fall. Back at home, we looked at our photos and my wife loved one
>> particularly, because it showed the immensity of the plain and the route we
>> had to follow. My wife was the closest person we could see on that dirt
>> road. I was the one who took the photo. (Canon A650). She said it was too
>> bad that I wasn't in the photo. After all, I was there... She wanted to blow
>> up the photo and have it laminated. So I took my wife and myself "out" of 2
>> other photos where we were dressed the same way and pasted us in the one
>> where she appeared very small at the forefront. I added our shadows and
>> Voilà! The final photo was cropped at 1920 x 1200 for our desktop.
>> Take a look at the "before and after":
>> http://picasaweb.google.fr/cosmar38/Alterations#
>> Is this a photograph? I think so. Had someone else taken the photo, it would
>> have been this way. We were both walking, she in front, and the scene was
>> exactly as taken. Of course, I tell those who look at it that it was
>> tricked. ;-)
>
>You don't have to tell anyone -- it is quite obvious:
Oh, c'mon. If that photo was on a website or in an album along with
several other photos taken on that trek, 99% of the viewers would not
notice a thing. The Photoshopping is *not* obvious until you start
examining the details. Then, only the viewers who have some knowledge
of Photoshopping and photography would be able to spot the points you
have listed.
Photoshopped images that are "quite obvious" to "anyone" are the
photos where the scene is improbable in itself...a photograph of an
ordinary person being embraced by a well-known celebrity, for example.
If Celcius had done this composite and omitted the walker's shadows
entirely the 99% would drop, but not drastically. A single image
might be scrutinized, but not an image in a series where the image
fits in with the series in appropriateness of scene.
>-There are three different sun angles corresponding to the three
>original images
>
>-The sun angle of the figure on the right is almost 180 degrees from the
>angles of the landscape, shadows, and figure on the left. This is most
>obvious in the hats and shirtsleeves -- the brightest and most prominent
>parts of the image
>
>-The perspective of the figures do not match each other or the landscape
>
>-The shadow images are identical and neither matches the figure
>
>-The walking stick does not cast a shadow
>
>-The figure shadows float over the existing shadow pattern on the road
>instead of blending with them, as the adjacent grass shadows do
>
>-Both figures float over the road without appearing to contact, due to
>the perspective differences and alignment problems with the feet
Peter
We have about 65 members who may submit up to three images in each category.
So I empathize. It's hard to get judges who manage to keep their comments
interesting and pertinent, without insulting the maker.
I entered a slide that the judge thought was slightly fuzzy. He shared a
technique for shooting fish in an aquarium. The only problem was that the
technique did not apply to shots taken on a wreck 40' below the surface. The
judge became defense when I called this to his attention.
There is one club that enters the same image in all competitions just to
show beginners that judging is subjective. (The judges are not aware of
which shot it is.)
--
Peter
Peter
news:siva-DD2B76.1...@news.isp.giganews.com...
>
> -The sun angle of the figure on the right is almost 180 degrees from the
> angles of the landscape, shadows, and figure on the left. This is most
> obvious in the hats and shirtsleeves -- the brightest and most prominent
> parts of the image
>
What he should have done was reverse the image on the right then we would
see the face and the sun would have been in the correct position. <G>
--
Peter
Pat
> On 2008-11-27 04:15:42 -0800, "Celcius" <celciu...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Savageduck" <savaged...@savage.net> wrote in message
> >news:2008112521161950073-savageduck@savagenet...
> >> On 2008-11-25 19:49:46 -0800, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> said:
>
> >>> On Nov 25, 10:37 pm, Savageduck <savaged...@savage.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 2008-11-25 08:13:44 -0800, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> said:
>
> >>>>> Years ago, when working in my darkroom, I had a pretty good idea what
> >>>>> a photograph was.
>
> >>>> of a "photograph" apply as much to a tintype, a daguerrotype, glass
> >>>> plate, celluloid film stock, CCD,or CMOS or what ever else might come
> >>>> along. It is the manipulation of light (photons "photo" as it were)
> >>>> through a lens or lens system (perhaps a pin hole) to be rendered as an
> >>>> image. A veritible lightdrawing or photograph.
>
> >>>> Technically because color visualization is a function of light, you
> >>>> might even say an oil painting is a photograph. Even today artists and
> >>>> journalists will use modern methods, as the great masters did to
> >>>> produce their art and record historic events. only now that is
> >>>> supplemented digitally.
>
> >>> It would seem like an overly broad definition if it includes both
> >>> paintings and photocopies as photographs.
>
> >> Just an extreme argument. Certainly it is ridiculous to call paintings
> >> etchings etc. photographs.
>
> > I'm not so sure about this.
> > Certain paintings are so **exact in reproducing forms and colour** that
> > they are deemed to be "photographs".
> > Painting is usually seen as what I would call for lack of a better
> > word, "interpretative". The artist either creates a mood (not
> > necessarily reproducing the scene) or an "impression" or a statement...
> > In the last case (and there are others), one needs to know more about
> > the artist to be able to decipher / understand / appreciate the art
> > work.
> > In the field of painting, exact reproduction is deemed to be a
> > "photograph" and is not appreciated.
> > Cheers,
> > Marcel
>
> I think you and I are on the same side in this debate. Following this
> part of the thread my initial extreme argument was based not so much on
> photo-realism, but the manipulation for light required by physics to
> produce an image. The quality of each of the materials and mixed tints,
> chalks, pastels, watercolor, oil or acrylics to absorb different
> wavelengths of light to demonstrate to the human eye a color is a
> function of light. Given that, the extreme argument could call all
> paintings "light drawings" or "photographs."
>
> There are certainly artists, some of the Dutch Masters come to mind who
> have produce works which have been described as "photo-real" by those
> aware of photography as we know it. I doubt if any of their
> contemporaries described those works in photographic terms, they were
> just in awe of thier artistic skill to create an illusion of realism.
> Check Van Eyck, Vermeer, Van Wittel and to some extent Rembrant. I
> still think it might be a little silly to actually call these works
> "photographs."
>
> So to depart from the extreme argument, I think it is safe to say a
> "photograph" is an image, produced by a lens system onto whatever the
> medium might be. That would include drawings and paintings produced
> with the aid of a Camera Obscura.
>
> To say the original subject should be represented, true to life,
> without manipulation to be called a photograph, is an unrealistic
> fantasy given the distortion imparted by most lenses. This relates to
> DOF, bokeh, vignetting, pincussion, barrel and other distortions
> imparted to the recording medium long before any post processing or
> manipulating is even thought of. Ultimately they are all expresions of
> the artist-photographer. Try creating a perfect architectural
> photograph and discover the problems photographers and lens
> manufacturers have had to deal with since day one.
>
> Photography is an art-science.
>
> So they are all photographs.
>
> "duck
I've never quite understood the fascination with realistically
representing an image -- especially when you consider that it isn't
really possible. You are not seeing an object, you are seeing light
bouncing off an object. So, as mentioned, colors are manipulated by
nature. Shine a red light on a blue object and you get black(-ish),
not blue or even red. But then again, a "blue object" is also
subjective because under red light, it's not blue -- it's only blue
under certain conditions.
Faithful reproduction reminds me of two things. First there are the
Kodak picture spots at Disney where you can stand, point the camera in
the direction they tell you to, and take a picture just like they want
you to. It's very nice but 10,000 people already did it. So what's
the big deal. Yes it's a photo, but so what? Then there's the Golden
Gate bridge. Same thing. There are 2 or 3 "stock" shots of it. So
what.
In either case, its better to do something else -- add some
interpretation or something interesting to the scene.
I'll take this one step farther into the realm of wedding photography
-- the bane of photography. The difference between a wedding
photographer and a good wedding photographer is a wedding photographer
takes pictures of what happens. A good wedding photographer makes
things happen -- things that would not happen otherwise.
Remembering that there are a lot of variables out there -- from light
to your brain processing things -- it might be safe to say that a
photograph may be the way you think something looked However, a
"good" photograph is how things should have looked.
I wonder why it is that I'm been doing something like photography (by
most people's opinions, it's not photography) for a long time compared
to most people. I started with film and a darkroom WAY before anyone
ever thought of digital but I have one of the widest definitions of
photography. As I said in the OP, I just did something that's far,
far removed from what most people do -- a silhouette that is cut from
the paper. I'm trying to figure out if that's a photograph. That's
where the shape is the image and there is no tonality. That pushes
beyond PS, but interestingly I could have done the same thing in my
darkroom and it probably would have been easier because Litho
internegs are easy to make.
mianileng
just dense. Yes, my opinions are my own. It is shared by many
others, but the point is not whether we are in the minority or
the majority, or whether we are an authority.
When I said "Why is it that the "anything goes" brigade often
chooses to ignore the above qualifications which have been stated
often enough?", the question was *not* about why some people
don't agree with me.
The question is this: when those who accept severely manipulated
images as photos argue their case, they often cite in-camera
processing and minor corrections as manipulations, and then
extrapolate that argument to include ANY amount of manipulation.
They ignore the distinction we make between minor correction and
major manipulation. They ignore analogies made in an attempt to
clarify our views. They may not accept our opinions, but they
should at least recognise and respond to those points of
distinction in their argument. That's how an intelligent
discussion should go. *That* was what my rhetorical question was
about.
Peter
>
>
> When I said "Why is it that the "anything goes" brigade often chooses to
> ignore the above qualifications which have been stated often enough?", the
> question was *not* about why some people don't agree with me.
>
> The question is this: when those who accept severely manipulated images as
> photos argue their case, they often cite in-camera processing and minor
> corrections as manipulations, and then extrapolate that argument to
> include ANY amount of manipulation. They ignore the distinction we make
> between minor correction and major manipulation. They ignore analogies
> made in an attempt to clarify our views. They may not accept our opinions,
> but they should at least recognise and respond to those points of
> distinction in their argument. That's how an intelligent discussion should
> go. *That* was what my rhetorical question was about.
When you use a term like "the anything goes brigade," there is a clear
pejorative intent directed at those who share an opinion that is not yours.
Do you really expect a clear response to a pejorative attack.
For clarity, I repeat my [unanswered] question to you: Except for
documentary photography why is this not a distinction without a difference.
--
Peter
tony cooper
<pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:5nvvi4hsd5vsv8465...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 08:33:22 -0500, "Peter"
>> <pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>news:6pjui4l3ppasdg58s...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> The members of the camera club travel quite a bit and seem to meet
>>>> camera club members from several other places. It can be a problem
>>>> having the same judges each month, so they work out "guest" judge
>>>> exchanges. We've had judges from several different countries, states,
>>>> and towns. Since it's a digital-only competition, it works out fine.
>>>>
>>>> You really get a different perspective with a fresh set of judges.
>>>> The "house" judges get too predictable.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Do they give you a critique, or just a score?
>>
>> Both. Some judge's critiques are better than other's.
>>
>> The problem with a large club and a lot of entries is that each must
>> be critiqued. Some entries really can't support a critique other than
>> "It's an uninteresting subject that was poorly photographed". It's a
>> social club too, though, so the judges have to come with something
>> good about it.
>>
>
>
>We have about 65 members who may submit up to three images in each category.
>So I empathize. It's hard to get judges who manage to keep their comments
>interesting and pertinent, without insulting the maker.
We are allowed one entry in color and one entry in black and white,
and can submit in each category. There was a category for prints, but
they've dropped that. All entries are now submitted by email. Still,
the competition nights run two hours of critiques.
Print competition was getting out of hand. Only a very small number
entered that group because you had to either have extensive equipment
at home or be able to pay big bucks for outside processing. I never
saw an 8 x 10 or smaller entered; they were all huge, matted,
blow-ups. No print-it-out-on-your-$150 Epson-stuff.
We also have "A" and a "B" levels. "A"s are professional
photographers and winners of three or more monthly competitions.
Peter
Your members spend their money on travelling, we have a lot of gear heads.
The number of entries and categories varies with the club. We used to have
A, B & Salon. We eliminated salon and now have in each class: prints; color
& monochrome; and digital, which we only started last year as a replacement
for slides. Digital may be color, BW or any combination thereof.
Our largest number of entries is in the monochrome print category. There
have been quite a few nice entries that were 8x10, even though our maximum
size is 16 ax 20, including the mounting board, I have not seen any larger
than 13x18.
--
Peter
mianileng
and I apologise. It arose out of frustration from the opposite
camp's continued ignoring of certain points of clarification I
and some others are trying to make. But haven't you got it
backwards a bit? I'm not aware of my making any "pejorative
attacks" before. The ignoring was the cause, not the result, of
my using the term.
> For clarity, I repeat my [unanswered] question to you: Except
> for
> documentary photography why is this not a distinction without a
> difference.
You worded that opinion previously as a statement, not a
question. And I did not reply to that post at all, which is
different from replying but selectively ignoring related points.
In any case, the distinction is important to a lot of people. It
also depends on the circumstances. I, too, often refer to
composite and manipulated pictures as photos in everyday
conversation. I (and I suspect others) make the distinction when
trying to form an opinion of the capabilities of a camera or
those of a photographer at (I repeat) taking pictures, not
creating an artistic image.
Someone (not necessarily an expert or even an enthusiast) asks
"How is your new camera?" or "You're always lugging your camera
around. Let's see how good your photos are." In such cases, I
feel obligated to show them my shots as they come out of the
camera, perhaps with some slight adjustments to brightness,
contrast, etc. If I showed them an extensively manipulated
picture, I wouldn't feel that I'm showing them a true photograph.
When I do show such highly modified pictures, I explain the
process of creation.
I'm not against creating artistic pictures from photos. I often
try to do it within the limits of my talent and experience. I
just don't call them photos when I feel the need to be accurate.
Peter
> The problem with a large club and a lot of entries is that each must
> be critiqued. Some entries really can't support a critique other than
> "It's an uninteresting subject that was poorly photographed". It's a
> social club too, though, so the judges have to come with something
> good about it.
>
Sometimes a judge makes an interesting, comment without thinking. Last month
I submitted a photo of a woman's breast wearing nothing but body paint and a
string of pearls.
The judge, not referring to the subject matter, commented that the picture
looked flat. It brought down the house.
--
Peter
mianileng
>
> I've never quite understood the fascination with realistically
> representing an image
Well, at least with some people, it is a challenge to test the
limits of our capabilities as well as that of our cameras.
> -- especially when you consider that it isn't really possible.
And that is where the challenge lies. We all know that it isn't
possible to capture a perfect image, but the fun is in trying to
get as close to it as we can.
> You are not seeing an object, you are seeing light
> bouncing off an object. So, as mentioned, colors are
> manipulated by
> nature. Shine a red light on a blue object and you get
> black(-ish),
> not blue or even red. But then again, a "blue object" is also
> subjective because under red light, it's not blue -- it's only
> blue
> under certain conditions.
>
Ah, but the object of realism photography is to capture the
apearance of the subject at the moment of picture-taking, either
in ambient light or the way it would look under common sources of
light.
I have nothing against artistic creativity. I don't think anyone
should stick solely to realism, but it is an objective that some
people enjoy trying to achieve some of the time.