Where does Photography end and Graphic Design begin?

[magic surf bus]

Picture 1 : the unaltered original
Picture 2 : very high contrast applied with software
Picture 3 : colourisation filter applied with software

Question: Which is the most valid as a photograph? ..and why?

[Matthew Walters]

Hi MSB.

Find me a fence to sit on...

1) Is fine as a documentary photograph, if all you want to do is record that you saw a pylon on a cloudy day

2) Is a more interesting version - it retains (roughly) the original image but with a stronger sky. I'd probably still call this a photograph

3) More interesting still, but I'd probably class this as an image rather than strictly a photograph. That said, it is my favourite out of the three

Out of interest, none of them would be a direct representation of how you remember the original scene.

You can of course argue that the third image could have been a photo of the scene if you had put a blue filter in front of the lens. Would this debate still be in place?

(Think back to the origins of photography - black and white photos with very high contrast would have been applauded as a good picture. If I were to do the same digitally, the photo's relevance would be queried.)

The literal translation of photograph is 'write with light' - if you had a poll (which you thankfully don't) I'd pick option 4 - all of the above.

Matthew

[---- Bhatta 15 ----]

I think it is difficult to draw a line. One requires to have certain amount of visualization talent to do either of them. You can only apply software and make a photograph stunning if you have a good photograph. I think both are complementary to each other, provided one has a talent for visualization. An IDEA is the main thing

[magic surf bus]

Interesting - my own feeling is that image 1 easily passes as a 'photograph' as it's unaltered, but I actually have some reservations about image 2 because of the extent of the contrast change. Now don't get me wrong, I routinely correct brightness/contrast with software but never by very much, and even feel guilty about using gamma correction at times. I feel image 2 just about slips under the gate but is somewhat overdone. Then again high contrast film has always been an option - I was a big fan of 400 ASA B/W HP5 stock when I first got into 35mm photography.

In my humble opinion image 3 is definitely not photography - it's a heavily manipulated image that attempts to make a rather dull boring shot look overly dramatic and artificially colourful. To me that's graphic design.

Only my opinion though - anyone else?

[Don Albonico]

Question: Which is the most valid as a photograph? ..and why?

I think that what is defined as a photograph is a moving target or maybe its the line between photograph and graphic design. As technology "improves" or maybe just changes. What constitutes a "Photograph" will change with it. We are experiencing it now with the move from film to digital. JeffSullivan (www.allstarphoto.us) comments about Ansel Adams I agree with. But the photograph you take with your camera may not be the image you have in your mind. The tools available to photographers now make it easer to make the photograph that is in the camera match the photograph in your mind. So what's more valid the photo you have in the camera or the one you visualized when you took the photo? So far as I can see that was what Ansel Adams was doing. Using the tools available to him to make the cameras image match image that was in his mind. If #3 was what the photographer visualized is it less "valid" then #1? What of the images in fashion magazines. Photography or graphic design? The photographs in these magazines are certainly not the images straight from the camera. Don't get me wrong here I don't think #3 is what I would consider a Photograph. But I think we as photographers have to keep a open mind about the shifting boundaries.

[magic surf bus]

I've reproduced Jeff Sullivan's comments (made in the Comments box below the image) here:

Quote:

In the comments section JeffSullivan (www.allstarphoto.us) said:

At a high level, deleting minor distractions is consistent with the photographic process of burning and dodging details in or out of a shot. Adding an entirely new subject, background, or other major scene components is graphidc design (and seems like a potential ethical issue if it's presented as photography). Your example is somewhat more subtle.

For perspective, here are some excerpts from the Ansel Adams Gallery biography of Ansel Adams:

"Nineteen twenty seven was the pivotal year of Adams's life. He made his first fully visualized photograph, Monolith, the Face of Half Dome..."

In 1930 Adams met photographer Paul Strand, whose images had a powerful impact on Adams and helped to move him away from the "pictorial" style he had favored in the 1920s. Adams began to pursue "straight photography," in which the clarity of the lens was emphasized, and the final print gave no appearance of being manipulated in the camera or the darkroom. Adams was soon to become straight photography's mast articulate and insistent champion. [Ed. Note: Manipulated in this instance meaning altering the clarity or content of the photographed subject matter. Techniques such as "burning" and "dodging", as well as the Zone System, a scientific system developed by Adams, is used specifically to "manipulate" the tonality and give the artist the ability to create as opposed to record.]

'I hope that my work will encourage self expression in others and stimulate the search for beauty and creative excitement in the great world around us' - Ansel Adams

Ansel Adams specifically departed from a strict recording of what was present, and in that moment, with his Monolith photo of Half Dome, he is credited with establishing photography as an art form.

The creative control and manipulation of a scene is a key component of photography as an art. Photography as a sterile recording medium involves as much art as a copy machine or a court stenographer. Anyone can show up with a camera and trip the shutter. Knowing how to exercise control, and how much control to exercise, is what separates artistic results from well-intentioned attempts.

The answer to the question of how much control to excercise could come from your intent: what is the subject you're trying to highlight, and what is the feeling or thought you're trying to evoke from the viewer? You may make different exposure, composition, and editing decisions depending upon which elements of the scene you're trying to emphasize and what mood you're trying to evoke.

With these 3 shots #1 seems more stenographic (might work in a textbook but not an art book), #2 appears realistic and may serve the artistic intent, and under most circumstances #3 would be a botched editing job but could fit with an artist's intent, whether we individually like it or not (I don't get the intent on this shot, so I'd assume it was a mistake).

At a more basic level however, if you're challenged or distracted by exposure or for any other reason snapping photos without primary concern for a subject, or with no intent regarding how it'll be viewed, well, that'll show in the results no matter how you edit it. Even after you master your camera, the exposure, and image postprocessing, if the your work isn't clearly communicating something it runs the risk of being dismissed as "snapshots."

In this example if the subject is the tall power line tower I'd like to see that made more clear by moving it further into the frame, reducing the dead space towards the left. I like the power lines out of the upper right corner as leading lines taking us to the tower, but by the photographer taking a few steps to the right you might be able to add lines from the small tower in the distant background coming up from the lower right corner, while still having the ones come down from the top right. Like a painter, get the subject/composition figured out first or you don't need to worry about the colors contrast, or other editing decisions.

I don't mean to present any of this as "right," just food for thought. Lately I've started walking away from shots that are scenic but don't have a clear subject. Usually I discover a subject nearby to focus on and the result is much more compelling than what I would otherwise have wasted my time and storage space on.

[magic surf bus]

Jeff's thought-provoking response has got me thinking:

"Anyone can show up with a camera and trip the shutter. Knowing how to exercise control, and how much control to exercise, is what separates artistic results from well-intentioned attempts."

I've always maintained that anyone can take a good picture in Venice - it's like shooting rats in a barrel. The real trick is to take an original picture in Venice, and after three visits I'm still trying...

"The answer to the question of how much control to excercise could come from your intent: what is the subject you're trying to highlight, and what is the feeling or thought you're trying to evoke from the viewer? You may make different exposure, composition, and editing decisions depending upon which elements of the scene you're trying to emphasize and what mood you're trying to evoke."

The boundaries between in camera and out of camera creativity are blurring. A purist might argue that what happens 'in camera' is all that matters but film stock, paper and processing decisions all had their part to play in pre-digital photography. For example, is the use of infra-red film and selected lens filters an example of photography or of art? The outcome would be similar to a Photoshop filtered image. Another line might be to consider what constitutes a photographic system - the capture device cannot function without the processing equipment and today's processing equipment includes computer hardware and software.

On the subject of artistic control (having never been directly involved in photo processing during 20+ years of 35mm photography) I've always concentrated on composition and timing - knowing when and where to take the picture rather than photographing an image in anticipation of subsequent cropping/editing/processing. I think in that respect I'm still a bit of a traditionalist, but since I started taking digital photographs I have to admit I'm taking more photos where I'm thinking 'I'll take a quick shot of the scene and crop that edge out later'

I suppose in short I'm biased towards the camera end of photography because I never really got involved in processing to the extent that true enthusiasts and pros did before digital photography came along. Now that a whole range of digital trickery has arrived I still retain that bias.

I deliberately used the pylon shot as an example because the original is such a bland and rather pointless composition - it is not very creative, just a snapshot. I wouldn't include the original in any collection for display. However, the colourised version might just pass muster as a poster image or magazine cover if accompanied by some sort of slogan and other text in the dead spaces, and herein lies the dilemma - would that have transformed it into graphic design? Furthermore, if I'd taken it with that process in mind am I a photographer or a graphic designer?

[JeffSullivanPhotography]

It could be argued that in a shot composed specifically to leave space for a magazine title and list of articles, the goal is to engage in graphic design, with the subject matter in the photograph simply serving as one of the graphic elements. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

On the infrared filter example, it seems that it catches the attention of some people, and if that helps someone sell prints, photographers can put IR photos in with their phony Photoshop watercolor effect prints and maybe send their kids to college on the profits. No problem. I don't perceive it as an accomplishment to emphasize the infrared spectrum in photos any more than I'd admire someone for other dynamic range oddities, such as turning the bass way up on their stereo and hammering nails through their speaker's tweeters. It's a gimmick. Gimmicks sell. It bugs me to no end though when gimmicks make an otherwise mediocre snapshot stand out from the crowd in a photo contest.

Can infrared photography be art though? Heck, if Brillo boxes and Campbell's soup cans can be art, anything can, but hopefully it will be possible for us to discern how the artist did something truly creative or original other than slap a filter on the lens or use a Photoshop filter that makes things "look funny." Either way, whether someone dubs somethig art or not, I reserve the right to still not care for it!

I would like to experiment with infrared photography some day... snap the typical few hundred cartoonish shots to get used to it, then see what you can really do with it. Can you explore shades of body heat? What would ice cubes on a body look like? A body on a large ice cube? Going from a hot tub to a snow bank? Drinking hot coffee? What happens when you use HDR on an infrared image? Blend it in with non-infrared frames? It suspect that it would take a while to gain any real control over the process, but you could accidentally produce come interesting graphic designs along the way. Maybe I'll create a whole new category of HDR nude art snowbank coffee drinkers in snowstorms.

Getting back to the creative process though, one of the things I found interesting about Ansel Adams' approach is that once he got way beyond the point of wanting to get a great exposure of a great scene, fine tuning that exposure (via his zone system, red filters, polarizing filters, etc.) became tools for creative control. Ansel did also spend dozens of hours in the darkroom on many prints, but his creative process started with visualization of what he could do with filters and selective use of the available light, before any light ever entered the camera. We see the effects of Photoshop more so we equate creativity with that end of the process, but it doesn't begin or end there. In fact, I'd propose that most of the time we can see the Photoshop work, its graphic design, and it's poorly executed graphic design as well.

One thing you have to be aware of though is a prejudice in certain photography circles today against exactly the type of realistic-looking "straight photography" result that Ansel Adams always aspired to end up with. It's very fashoinable to show that you can do something, perhaps anything, with an editing program. People like to justify what they do as "right," so if you can't get out of the house and shoot compelling landscapes, you might as well pump up all that Photoshop glitz that is accessible to you on a daily basis.

In the "Last Photographer Standing" contest on Google's own Dgrin forum that accompanies their SmugMug gallery hosting and printing business, one of the judges downgraded several images in this critique for appearing to be too natural:

"It isn't ranked higher, because even though it's beautiful, it's a shot that relys more on nature's beauty than on the photographers creativity or vision."

"Another gorgeous landscape. It makes me want to be there. It's majestic, and I checked, majestic is used in the American Heritage Dictionary's definition of stately. But again, if anyone has mastered the technical ability of taking a perfectly exposed photograph, they can arise at the proper time and take a beautiful shot like this. I really like it, but the contest is in my opinion more about creative expression."

To me, the comments say more about the judge than they do about the photos.

The implication seems to be that he believes that a landscape is simply there for the taking, that a compelling landscape photo simply happens, and is not the result of a creative process involving deliberate forethought on the concept, artistic control in its execution, or creative expression in its presentation (such as through postprocessing editing choices). My guess is that the more transparent you make the result look, the more likely you'll get your work dismissed by these types.

Another judge in this contest picked a selectively colored image as his #1 pick. Three cheers for the Photoshop lasso cursor and layers, what a glorious and novel artistic concept! If you can't get the point across clearly in the photograph, you might as well hit the judges over the head with your beginner Photoshop skills. If the judges were going to buy a painting, they'd probably prefer the one painted with a hammer. After all, anyone with the technical skills can show up and paint with a brush!

Carrying this reasoning to its logical conclusion, Ansel Adams was a hack. Anyone can show up in the backcountry of Yosemite for a month with 100 pounds of large format camera equipment on a donkey and produce photos like his. Once you get the technical details out of the way of course... and the 10 years of experience it took you to gain the skill to master them. Anyone.

Nowhere in the contest rules does it say that the contest is "more about creative expression." I don't know why a simple Photoshop technique would imply creative expression to some judges. Colored photos were popular before Ansel developed adequate tools and skill to champion a more subtle and refined style. Perhaps we're just coming full circle, and some new art form will emerge out of our current gimmick-riddled quagmire.

In country where we get our musicians from American Idol, we might as well dumb down our visual arts as well.

As a side note, I like how the Dgrin contest prizes include a copy of Photoshop CS3, but if you don't somehow show the judges that you already own it, you're much less likely to win it! Shouldn't a copy of Photoshop, and a class on how to use it, be the prize for the worst photo, or the most botched editing job?

[Matthew Walters]

Hi Jeff, I know this is in danger of veering way off-topic, but I understand your comments about the dgrin competition and judging. I entered a couple of times, never really expecting to get anywhere - more for feedback.

It seems I just don't understand the judging process as some of the winners really don't make any sense. As you say, it's less of a photo competition and more of a post-process competition now and I know I'm not going to win any prizes there

Matthew

[© Douglas MacGregor]

When I first joined Panoramio I posted my photos straight as they came out of the camera. I then decided that by trimming the edges I could "improve" my photos by cutting out distracting material and making the main object of the photograph relatively larger. At some later point I realised that by adjusting the contrast and brightness of an image I could make the subjects stand out a bit more and be more noticeable so making the photo easier to view. I have on occasion used software to sharpen edges of photos which were slightly out of focus and so "save" the photo. I have also used software to meld or stitch several photographs together to create a wide Panorama. I have justified each of these actions as making the photograph clearer.

Then you come to some examples which take your breath away. See the two photos below by
dick.v




The first is a photo of a Gull in flight taken in Scotland against a typical grey sky. This is a photograph. The second is the same shot, but with the sky altered to be orange and the title now says "sunset glider". It would be great to have sunsets like this in Scotland, but they are very rarely as good as this. This is an image. It has crossed the line and can not be considered as a photograph any more.

This image has been tagged for the Panoramio Elections competition, but if images like this win prizes I wonder what the competition is all about. It is curious that the original photo has been around on Panoramio for several months but has only 43 views. The "sunset glider" is much newer but already has 198 views. What does this say about the viewing public? Do we all wish to live in some idealised world which we need rose-tinted glasses to enter?

[magic surf bus]

Douglas: Well said - I'm in entire agreement with everything you say. Take this picture for example:



In Tag searches for 'London' it is first in the results list, and it has been viewed over 30,000 times.

..and it's completely fake - the last total solar eclipse in the UK was in 1999 and was only visible from parts of the Southwest coast. It was in the southern sky (I know, I was there) and definitely wasn't visible over East London and Essex.

Yet if the tag search results are anything to go by this is supposedly Panoramio's most 'representitive' image of London.

Curiouser and curiouser..

[JeffSullivanPhotography]

The composite is well executed with the lens flare and all, but the cartoonish size reminds me of those annoying "giant moon" postcards that you see for sale in tourist destinations such as San Francisco.

Clicking the link to see it in original size... there appears to be dust on the print, perhaps the eclipse was scanned or photographed by the photographer from his earlier analog shots.

I left a note under the image. Here's how the photographer replied:

"It's not a postcard, it is a photoshop work from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/43819 where you can see the dock as phoenix says."

It's an interesting departure from the rest of the photographer's portfolio.

You're right about the trail of that '99 eclipse. Solar eclipses cast a very small shadow, as shown on this map of the path of that eclipse over the U.K.:
http://www.arm.ac.uk/eclipse99.html

I did find some entertaining global images from that eclipse:
http://www.mumbai-central.com/misc/solar.html

[Don Albonico]

As to the "elections" I am not sure what the point is. In this community I just don't understand why we need to say some image is the "best one". It seams divisive to the community spirit. About the London image if a image is "fake" it dose not deserve consideration as to its artistic merit? The London image may be taking it to an extreme but it is striking. I guess it comes down to what you think Panoramio is about. I personally would not upload a image like the London one even if I had imaged it. But I have no real objections to it so long as the photographer makes no claims as to it being real. If every image allowed was only unaltered photos of locations. I think Panoramio might be a bit boring and.... we would not be having this debate.

[Jack Bieser]

Quote magic surf bus:

The orginal image in my opinion by film would be coser to Reality than a digital photo. Mybe some day in the future any image that is recorded
will be accepted as real. "Iam staying with film"

In whatever form computational photography becomes commonplace, people continue to adopt it over conventional image making will take pictures that capture more of what they actually see, and sometimes what never was at all.

[gregpphoto]

Quote JeffSullivan (www.allstar:

....Getting back to the creative process though, one of the things I found interesting about Ansel Adams' approach is that once he got way beyond the point of wanting to get a great exposure of a great scene, fine tuning that exposure (via his zone system, red filters, polarizing filters, etc.) became tools for creative control. Ansel did also spend dozens of hours in the darkroom on many prints, but his creative process started with visualization of what he could do with filters and selective use of the available light, before any light ever entered the camera. We see the effects of Photoshop more so we equate creativity with that end of the process, but it doesn't begin or end there. In fact, I'd propose that most of the time we can see the Photoshop work, its graphic design, and it's poorly executed graphic design as well.

.....

The implication seems to be that he believes that a landscape is simply there for the taking, that a compelling landscape photo simply happens, and is not the result of a creative process involving deliberate forethought on the concept, artistic control in its execution, or creative expression in its presentation (such as through postprocessing editing choices). My guess is that the more transparent you make the result look, the more likely you'll get your work dismissed by these types.

Another judge in this contest picked a selectively colored image as his #1 pick. Three cheers for the Photoshop lasso cursor and layers, what a glorious and novel artistic concept! If you can't get the point across clearly in the photograph, you might as well hit the judges over the head with your beginner Photoshop skills. If the judges were going to buy a painting, they'd probably prefer the one painted with a hammer. After all, anyone with the technical skills can show up and paint with a brush!

....Carrying this reasoning to its logical conclusion, Ansel Adams was a hack. Anyone can show up in the backcountry of Yosemite for a month with 100 pounds of large format camera equipment on a donkey and produce photos like his. Once you get the technical details out of the way of course... and the 10 years of experience it took you to gain the skill to master them. Anyone.

I want to say that I agree with 99% of what you said, Mr. Sullivan. While youre almost a hundred percent right about Ansel being a hack, not everyone could take the photos he did. In reading Galen Rowells book "The Art of Adventure Photography" I came upon a chapter that had some impact on me. To paraphrase it, he wrote that while teaching a photo workshop, he brought 15 or so people to a spot and had them all photograph the same objects. In the end, their photos were entirely different. Art is so subjective and random that me and you could plant a tripod in a hundred different spots, alternate turns on it, and come out with different results. Perhaps im splitting hairs, but the fact that Ansel's vision caused his photos to look the way they do, regardless of technique, makes them uniquely his own.

I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of what you stated, and i just wanted to put my two cents in there.

[VKeith]

"The first is a photo of a Gull in flight taken in Scotland against a typical grey sky. This is a photograph. The second is the same shot, but with the sky altered to be orange and the title now says "sunset glider". It would be great to have sunsets like this in Scotland, but they are very rarely as good as this. This is an image. It has crossed the line and can not be considered as a photograph any more. "

I can't agree.

I read this column with great interest and struggle with how far is too far for Panoramio. I came to join Panoramio after finding a particularly artistic version of a photo while exploring the world from my with GE. I was intrigued to see that GE had photos other than standard snapshots.

An Art Professor once said to me "Ninety five percent of talent is hard work!" I have arrived at the conclusion that if the art work starts with a photographic image, then it is a photograph. I mean that it started with a photo rather than pencil, paint, chalk, or chisel and stone. After that, it is a matter of taste.

In the beginning example of the wires, I don't like any of them because I don't find the subject attractive or appealing, no matter what is done to it. The flying gull is interesting to me and made more so with the addition of the yellow sky. If the white of the gull also turns yellow, I don't like it so much.

Some of my pictures go up with no editing whatsoever. After looking around on panoramio, I decided to post several pictures that I PS enhanced somewhat to make them more attractive. I am reluctant to post those that have been really been pushed to a perceived edge of graphic art but I may soon.

Personally, I feel ripped off when I see an amazing thumbnail, and then find that a feature has been completely painted in with little regard for reality, such as in one very popular photo of Halfdome from Olmstead Point where the only redeeming quality of the original is an opening in the clouds. The "artist" dodged a straight stream of light out of the clouds onto the rock as though someone up there in the clouds put a giant spotlight on the rock. What contrivance!

It's really hokey. But, it's popular! If you read the posts, some people melt over it and some people are severely furious, shouting "Fake! Fake!" I think of the photographer's name as a verb now.

Thanks again for the interesting topic and considering my two cents.

[VKeith]

I have one more thought to share about my previous writing. In the context of GE, when I am looking for what people actually see at a particular point on the earth, rather than what the satellites see, I like the the high wires photo. It tells me more about a place perhaps, than the seagull.

The left one tells me something about the ground because it hasn't been burned to complete blackness. The center one shows me a pretty sunset but nothing about the foreground except it's outline. The blue one on the right suggest more about the attitude of the photographer toward the scene. But, there is still valid information about what the palce looks like. That's enough for me.

I suppose with a great deal of careful work in PS or other editor, with more careful "selections", one could combine what I find the best of all three and come out with something really outstanding.

And, the more I look at it, the wires are very interesting after all!

Again, thanks. Good topic.

[magic surf bus]

VKeith: Much as I appreciate the compliments I still maintain that the original powerline shot that I started this thread with was so bland and pointless that only software jiggery pokery could make it grab a viewer's attention. To prove to myself that powerlines could be a worthwhile subject for photography I also took the following two images at the same spot and applied no software manipulation beyond a tiny amount of brightness/contrast adjustment:



Not (Google) Earth shattering images but I reckon they do the job of representing the location...

[GrumpyOldMan]

I have to agree with VKeith ... partially ...

maybe many people don't know or do not care about who many others might be in the 'professional' world of picture editing?

But a true and real pro would (and I think he SHOULD) mark a 'total edited' picture as 'edited' or 'shopped' (as I would say).

You can not define an exact value of +/- Contrast, Hue, Saturation; Selected Channel Combinations and so on and so forth ...

... as long as there is a visible difference (original and 'total refurbished') ok. But if the discussion goes on and on ... what about the HDR-people?!?

Isn't that the same (from the professional point of view)?

Sincerely, the GrumpyOldMan.

[Jessica G.]

Quote GrumpyOldMan:

On Panoramio, do it with tags. I have an "Art" tag for pictures I've fiddled with (not Photoshopping, because I don't have Photoshop) and another tag for HDR. I'd never think of changing a picture and not letting viewers know I did it, as well as asking for opinions. A little while ago I uploaded two versions of the same rainbow, one original and the other tampered with, and asked people which they thought was better. There were good arguments for both opinions, and I learned from it.

Most of the time I don't even adjust brightness on my photos, and maybe they suffer for it. But whether it's HDR tonemapping or bumping up the red saturation, it should never be presented without some explanation. The Halfdome VKeith referred to, and the eclipse in London, don't do these things. So they end up with comment after comment wondering whether they're real.

I don't think modifying a photo slightly makes it suddenly "Graphic art" or unfit for Google Earth. But I agree wholeheartedly with this GrumpyOldMan, be honest about it.

>From the exact opposite of a pro,
Jessica

[gregpphoto]

if something has been photoshopped enough to look like a new product, wouldnt that be visible even without the marking of it as such? To me, i dont think anyone should have to mark their artistic work as "graphic design" or "hdr" or whatever. People are too caught up on the medium and the process and not the finished work.

For years, film photographers griped about digital being fake and not true photography. well now, digital photographers gripe about hdr people, etc.

Art is art, and that should be good enough for anyone. Forget the rules and classes and segments, just enjoy the beauty of it.

[Matthew Winn]

I think we have to take into account the purpose of the picture. Is the intention to create something beautiful to look at or is it to inform the viewer? In the specific case of Panoramio, many people view the pictures in order to get an idea of what a location looks like. For them "art" doesn't matter. The question becomes: Is this picture an honest representation of a location?

To that end, my opinion is that on Panoramio mapped photographs should be a true representation of a location. Minor adjustments of contrast and removal of colour casts are OK. Using a clone tool to remove distracting elements that aren't part of a scene is OK too: a discarded take-away carton in the middle of an otherwise perfect landscape, for instance.

But when the editing of an image creates something that wasn't actually there then the image probably shouldn't be mapped at all. The picture of the eclipse in London is something nobody could possibly see. It's a "this could never happen" artwork, and as such it isn't representative of London and shouldn't be on the map.

[magic surf bus]

Call me a grumpy old stick-in-the-mud but I have yet to see a HDR image that didn't look like a backdrop from a 'Shrek' movie. They also remind me of the sort of art that skilled airbrush artists could create about 20 years ago - clever but too good to be true.

[GrumpyOldMan]

@matt: Thumbs up!

[gregpphoto]

but what makes cloning out distractions ok? if that milk crate was there when you took the photo, and yet it doesnt appear in the photo you post, then when i view it, ill assume that there wont be any trash at this one location. Splitting hairs? maybe

I see what youre saying though, as panoramio is more of a guidebook than an art book, but I still feel that art can have a role in that. If i were to see a crappy camera phone photo of a place in very bad lighting, id be less inclined to want to go there than if i saw a wonderful magnificent piece of art. Even though it might not look exactly as such when i get there, it still inspires me to want to be there in the first place.

[magic surf bus]

Here's an example by xfuelx where clone brushing the discarded can would definitely spoil the composition:



I occasionally clone brush but usually it's to blur the boundaries between pictures in a Panorama sequence. It does however raise spectres of 'airbrushing people from history', for example when Leon Trotsky fell out of favour with the Communist Party in Soviet Russia and began to disappear from revolution era photographs.

Alternatively we now have the phenomenon of airbrushing people into history, for example the online attempt to discredit John Kerry in the US presidential elections by mocking up an image of him sharing a protest rally platform with Jane Fonda.

[gregpphoto]

its a blessing and curse, the technology we come up with. Im sure some people remember a photo of a diver being towed out of the water via helicopter inches from the open jaws of a great white jumping out of the water. Turns out it was a fake.

[Ryan Calhoun]

I don't think altering colors necessarily qualifies as graphic design. Beyond the basic brightness/contrast settings that I think everyone can agree with, the saturation and color balance of a photo must often be adjusted to achieve a more "true" appearance. If your camera takes jpegs, then a lot of this happens inside the camera, via the camera's embedded image processing software, before you even see it. Many cameras have settings for things like "vivid red" or sepia. There are many things that can be done to digital images to mimic various photo processing/developing techniques for prints, slides, etc.

And if your camera takes raw images, then some of these technique must be applied to get something other than a flat muddy brown image. And what about the conversion from raw to a usable format? There are many choices to make, such as how much color to keep in the highlights, and how to affect the black level and gamma curves. And what about the various conversions between color spaces used in processing (CIELab, CMYk, HSV, HSL, Fourier transforms, etc)? All these decision must be made, whether manually or automatically, and they all affect the original sensor data in the camera.

Is adding a color cast to an image any different than photographing through a colored filter? Is a color inverse of an image any different than a film negative?

There are so many blurred lines, I think the distinction has to be made in either the intention or the result, not in the technique. I think graphic design has to include some element which is new, which is the creation of the designer. I have many photos which have easily identifiable altered colors or isolated colors, which I've tagged false color. But I wouldn't qualify any of them as graphic design, since I was only modifying the colors which were already present.

What I would qualify as graphic design would include images blended from multiple photos, or images with photoshop filters like spotlights or flare spots added, things which were definitely not there to begin with.

[Matthew Winn]

Quote Ryan Calhoun:

There are so many blurred lines, I think the distinction has to be made in either the intention or the result, not in the technique. I think graphic design has to include some element which is new, which is the creation of the designer. I have many photos which have easily identifiable altered colors or isolated colors, which I've tagged false color. But I wouldn't qualify any of them as graphic design, since I was only modifying the colors which were already present.

This is the problem with trying to divide a continuous distribution of pictures into an either-or category: it just won't work for all cases. I think of your picture of the tractor, for instance, as both a manipulated artwork (because of the selective desaturation) and a true representation of the location (because it still shows exactly what was in front of the lens). On the other hand I have this...

...which is unmanipulated but which, because I used a full-frame fisheye lens, also shows Hungerford Bridge in a way that nobody who went there could actually see it (unless, perhaps, they were a fish).

[Ryan Calhoun]

That's a good point, Matthew. I think it's possible, though, for someone to look through a fish-eye lens without taking a photo. Consider a telephoto lens. It gives a true picture, but someone must look through a telescope to see it. Or a wide lens. The image will be distorted, and someone will have to stand in that spot and pan their head around to get the same field of view. The fish-eye lens is just an extreme of that. Even something as bizarre as a compound lens like a bug's eye, with many tiny overlapping images, ought to be considered a valid tool of photography.

Here's a thought:

In the days of film photography, most people took their film to the photo place to be developed. Yes some people, including my dad, had their own darkroom to develop their own prints. But I think the argument can be made that the developing and processing could be considered separate from photography. Amateur photographers, who constitute the vast majority, would probably consider only the act of taking the picture as photography. Or, that photography ends the moment the shutter closes.

Film could not become prints (or slides) without developing. Chemical solutions, timing, dodging and burning, touch-up ink: these were the tools of developing and finishing. I don't think anyone would argue that removing dust spots means it's not a photograph anymore.

Similarly, digital photos cannot become a viewable image unless some kind of processing occurs. So now we have software which is cheap enough and easy enough that the majority of amateur photographers do their own photo processing. They may consider the whole process now as part of photography. But I will argue that photography still ends when the shutter closes, and anything that happens after that, in the camera or on the computer, is a separate process.

Much of the discussion here has been "What is a photo?" vs "What is graphic design?". But the original topic: "Where does photography end and graphic design begin?" seems to me a different question. Here are my definitions.

1. Photography ends, as I've said, the moment the shutter closes (the same with either film or digital). Anything that happens before that, like lens or filter effects, is included.
   
   
2. Photo finishing in some form occurs after that, otherwise no one can ever look at the photograph (again, the same with either film or digital). This can include many brightness and color manipulations, and even spot touch-ups. In some photos, the manipulation is more obvious than in others, and might even yield an impressionist, surrealist, or otherwise artistic result.
   
   
3. Graphic design only begins when an artist merges some graphic from a source other than the photo with the intention of creating a design. As with the first two steps, this is true of film and digital as well. A collage of cut-up photos, and a skillfully merged eagle-dog or crock-parrot, are simply different points on the same spectrum.
   

This is the way it makes the most sense to me, by considering both digital and film photography together.

[magic surf bus]

Ryan: Another way (similar to yours) is to borrow the 3 categories from other forms of media production, ie 1. Pre-Production, 2. Production, and 3. Post-production

Production is the actual image capture and Post-Production occurs after the shutter has closed. Production might include the use of different lenses and lens filters, whilst software filters and after-capture image manipulation definitely come under Post-Production.

Going back to the original example I started the thread with, image 1 is Production work and the other two images are examples of Post-Production work.

[© L K Kelley]

Hmmm. Well, I'm completely a novice, but I can tell you what each one means when I look at it to me.

1. Reminds me of some of my original photos which have been changed by the atmosphere

2. Reminds me of the same photo enhanced, and detail brought out.

3. I particularly love, because it gives me the feeling of depth, and something that is impending.

Photography, to me, is the original photo. The unaltered photo actually means far more to me than an altered one. However, it is not always my favorite.

The 3rd photo represents art to me. Photo #2 would make a great poster. But, I'm a novice, and know what I like when I see it. So, my opinion doesn't really count that much.

[Matthew Walters]

Quote Smiley4554:

But, I'm a novice, and know what I like when I see it. So, my opinion doesn't really count that much.

Novice, amateur, or pro - everybody's opinion is welcome (and sought) here. Thanks for joining the debate.

Matthew

[gregpphoto]

Quote Ryan Calhoun:

1. Photography ends, as I've said, the moment the shutter closes (the same with either film or digital). Anything that happens before that, like lens or filter effects, is included.
   
   
2. Photo finishing in some form occurs after that, otherwise no one can ever look at the photograph (again, the same with either film or digital). This can include many brightness and color manipulations, and even spot touch-ups. In some photos, the manipulation is more obvious than in others, and might even yield an impressionist, surrealist, or otherwise artistic result.
   
   
3. Graphic design only begins when an artist merges some graphic from a source other than the photo with the intention of creating a design. As with the first two steps, this is true of film and digital as well. A collage of cut-up photos, and a skillfully merged eagle-dog or crock-parrot, are simply different points on the same spectrum.
   

This is the way it makes the most sense to me, by considering both digital and film photography together.

I think that anything that goes into making the photograph, pre or post processing, is part of "photography". It doesnt end when the shutter closes, but when you consider it to be finished, film or digital. Whatever you do to make the photograph yours is photography. The end result is a photograph, and thats where it ends. to me anyway.

[skida]

This is a fascinating discussion with some very eloquently put opinions.

I can see merit in all techniques but if the purpose of Panoramio in GE is to give people an idea of what a location looks like from the ground, I would question the validity manipulating an image so much that it no longer represents the reality of that location.

Personally, I will adjust light and contrast, adjust sloping horizons and maybe try to sharpen a slightly blurred image. By limiting myself to this I hope that it will encourage me to think more about the composition and lighting before clicking the button. I know I have a long way to go but I am enjoying the learning and I am confident that my photos give a true representation of the location.

I am a biker and see similar discussions on biker forums about bike shows: Should trailered-in bikes be allowed to compete with ridden-in bikes?

[C.e.C.v]

I'd like to present another point for this forum (that i love)

See this two pictures
This     And this  

They haven't been touched with any sofwere, but they has those colors because in the moment of the picture i played with the white balance...

Even this situation runs out of photography and becomes digital design, or it is considered as a photography...?

What you think? it is like the first exmaple of the photo touched first with the contrast and then with the color... but not wih a softwere

.| Chris

[C.e.C.v]

I think that the real photographer is that one who take the photo (film or digital) and it's done... the work it's finished... because the art of PHOTOGRAPH, means: draw with LIGHT... thats the definition of photograph, and it never envolves the computer softweres or the modification with chemichals (in the case of films)...
I think that in the moment that you took the picture you are a PHOTOGRAPHER and you made a PHOTO, in the momment that you put it in your computer or in a softwere to modificate it (lights, bright, contrast, or whatever) you have made an IMAGE, but the PHOTOGRAPH has desappear... and you has become into an Image Designer... and that goes for the people that use films too!
I believe that if you see a landscape, or an object that you want to photograph, but you don't want it in the way it is, you must think in a method to make the photo that you want to take, thats a good photographer...

I'll present you another example...
I've allways wanted to photograph a moonset... but you need filters, and the filters are expensive...

well i've never catch the moon for that reason...
But watch this



it could seen like the moon if i could have more time to get it well... and I hasn't used any filter on this picture... and obviously i didn't touch it in photoshop or any softwere...
That day i think for a minute and vôila! i was using sunglasses that day, so i used them...
But it isn't the real landscape that i saw in the real life... so what is this?? an image or a photo?

I believe that this one, and the other two that i show you before are photos, because i didn't play with a softwere... i play with the LIGHT... the unique component of a PHOTO

thats what i think

Cheers

.| Chris

[Ryan Calhoun]

Chris, your example above (re white balance) is an example of digital image processing. As I've mentioned previously, it's not possible to take a digital photo without image processing. Many people claim that they don't do any photoshop work, therefore their images are "natural". But every single image which comes from a digital sensor has some image processing done to it, either in the camera itself or afterward. If you take jpegs on the camera, the camera's built-in software does many conversions for color balance and correction, then compresses the image. If you take raws, then any software you use later on does some algorithms to processes the file and give you a usable image file, and there are many settings which can be adjusted to this process as well.

With any kind of photography, image processing (digital or chemical) is a necessary part of the process, and this doesn't qualify as graphic design.

I'll add to your other argument about using filters. Any natural light leaving the sun takes 8 minutes to reach earth's atmosphere. Light which reaches the surface must penetrate the exosphere, thermosphere, mesosphere, stratosphere, and troposphere. Each of these layers has a varying temperature and density range which diffuses and refracts light as it passes through. The stratosphere contains the ozone layer (O3 gas) which reflects all but the longest wavelengths of ultraviolet light away from the surface. By the time visible light reaches the surface of the planet, reflects off of the photo subject (usually a highly irregular surface), passes the camera lens, and reaches the film or sensor, it has passed through over 6200 miles of atmosphere and become a highly confused mix of wavelengths and oscillations with many orientations. The earth's atmosphere is the world's largest diffusion filter. I believe that photos taken on earth still qualify as photos, even with the use of this large "filter". Likewise, I believe that any other filter (or any artificial or colored light source) can be used in the same way.

Software filters are used all the time inside digital cameras, and in photoshop. These are intended to reproduce the effect of using a real filter which you might not have with you when you took the photo. Adjusting factors like brightness, contrast, and saturation can be used to reproduce developing effects from different kinds of film, chemicals, timings, etc. I would qualify these as not strictly part of photography, but still part of the essential photographic process. But we are still not entering into graphic design.

I don't think anyone would argue that applying different techniques in the darkroom would disqualify the final print from being a photograph.

[skida]

I believe a lot of dark room techniques ..er.. developed to make up for the short comings of photographic paper.

I used to know the names for some of the techniques but have forgotten, but an example would be a photo, in low light, of a waterfall where to get the detail of the grass and trees would mean an exposure time on the enlarger that would burn out the detail of the water. The answer was a thin pole with a small disc on the end which the photographer would move over the water area while projecting the image on the paper. This did not create something that wasn't there when the picture was taken, but did give an end result which looked like the scene the photographer had snapped.

The digital equivalent does the same, I believe if you go beyond that and produce something you never saw (or could ever see), you enter the realms of unreality and are no longer recording. You are creating.

[JeffSullivanPhotography]

Quote gregpphoto:

I want to say that I agree with 99% of what you said, Mr. Sullivan. While youre almost a hundred percent right about Ansel being a hack, not everyone could take the photos he did. In reading Galen Rowells book "The Art of Adventure Photography" I came upon a chapter that had some impact on me. To paraphrase it, he wrote that while teaching a photo workshop, he brought 15 or so people to a spot and had them all photograph the same objects. In the end, their photos were entirely different. Art is so subjective and random that me and you could plant a tripod in a hundred different spots, alternate turns on it, and come out with different results. Perhaps im splitting hairs, but the fact that Ansel's vision caused his photos to look the way they do, regardless of technique, makes them uniquely his own.

I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of what you stated, and i just wanted to put my two cents in there.

Actually I should clarify that I don't think that Ansel Adams a was a hack, I was describing the attitude of some photo contest judges who believe that landscapes are inherently artless, that a beautiful but natural-looking landscape photo can't qualify as art because you can't obviously see the art, the human influence. I should add that the portfolio of the one particular judge who seemed to hold that opinion had few landscapes in it, none of which seemed particularly competent or compelling, he seemed to focus on ducks, squirrels and other wild animals (if only HTML had a sarcasm tag...).

The definition of art does include and seem to require human participation in creating the result, but the definition also frequently involves copying nature, so the fact that the result resembles a natural-looking scene shoud not disqaulify it as art, but might arguably qualify it as "better" art.

That, in my opinion, was Ansel's talent, having the conceptual vision to see how he could manipulate a scene to emphasize certain aspects, then having the skill and determination to edit the scene before, during and after the shot until he produced something altogether natural-looking, but transcending the "real." Ansel was a proponent of what was referred to as "straight" photography. It seemed to be his goal to produce something that was better than real, while not allowing the result to betray the process, or even reveal the simple fact that it was manipulated.

It's ironic that he had to ardently change the appearance of his images so that photography could finally be considered "art" (created and manipulated by man), but the result could easily be mistaken for being unmanipulated. The interesting question that this brings up is whether the huge, gaudy, over-saturated Velvia prints being sold in galleries for thousands of dollars can possibly be considereed art, since they're proudly presented as "unmanipulated." If they're not manipulated, and therefore not art, why should customers part with a few grand for a print?

Photoshop, HDR and other techniques mimic many of the editing tools that Ansel used, but most of us (myself included) cannot yet wield them with as much proficiency and success.

[VKeith]

[quote="JeffSullivan (www.actives"]

Quote gregpphoto:

I was describing the attitude of some photo contest judges who believe that landscapes are inherently artless, that a beautiful but natural-looking landscape photo can't qualify as art because you can't obviously see the art, the human influence. I should add that the portfolio of the one particular judge who seemed to hold that opinion had few landscapes in it, none of which seemed particularly competent or compelling, he seemed to focus on ducks, squirrels and other wild animals (if only HTML had a sarcasm tag...).

The definition of art does include and seem to require human participation in creating the result, but the definition also frequently involves copying nature, so the fact that the result resembles a natural-looking scene should not disqualify it as art, but might arguably qualify it as "better" art.

Wow! I've never entered contests but what about the 'art' of hiking to a remote location and surviving it with the pictures to show for it! I most admire those photographs. I am proudest of my landscapes that I worked to get, rather than the snaps that came from beside the road. I am most amazed by the climber half way up the cliff who takes out his camera and shoots his climbing partner below. That's a shot most of us will NEVER get.

As for photoshop and other software: I have a confession. Every photo I take gets converted to a tiff for archiving. Then, the jpeg goes to a free version of photoshop that came with a computer magazine several years ago. I rotate and straighten and save again as modified. I'm not sure if it is my vision or what, but almost every photo I take is off-kiltered slightly to the right.

Once straightened, cropping is necessary. Sometimes, in straightening, I fill corners in order to keep some detail in the middle of the frame with the rubber stamp.

Then I begin fooling with light and color if necessary. If I hiked miles with forty five pounds on my back, drove miles out of my way, or simply pulled over, I'm am definitely going to do what I can with software to make the picture look good. I do this with all photos because I view them as a slice in time that won't occur exactly the same again.

In short, the software is freeing for me. Photos that never before merited showing, although the location or subject was worthwhile, can now be presented acceptably. Does it make me less of a 'photographer'? I don't think so because I was there with a camera!

Should they all be tagged with PS? Edited? Straightened? Cropped? Saturated? Burned in foreground? Dodged the cliff face? Cloned .756% of image at lower left and upper right? If one takes this argument to it's logical conclusion, I am no longer a photographer but a secretary. No, thank you.

[Matthew Winn]

I think people today sometimes forget (or never knew) just how much darkroom manipulation was possible, and darkroom work that wouldn't have raised an eyebrow a decade ago is considered a heinous crime when done on a computer.

Contrast was adjusted by suitable choice of film and paper and also, to a certain extent, by development: overexpose and underdevelop to reduce contrast, underexpose and overdevelop to increase it. Saturation could be controlled by the choice of film. Everybody who has ever printed with an enlarger has rotated the easel to match the negative: the film equivalent of leveling the horizon. Converging verticals could be made parallel by raising up one end of the easel (and then sweeping across the image with a piece of card to even up the exposure). Dark areas could be lightened by dodging and light areas darkened by burning in.

Then there are more extreme changes. Multiple exposures allowed dark objects to be added to an image, while sandwiching two negatives together allowed the addition of light objects. Many photographers had a moon negative that allowed them to drop a moon into an otherwise empty sky. And there's the Sabatier Effect (often misleadingly called solarisation), which I was doing in the darkroom with paper negatives over 25 years ago. The image below doesn't do the original justice: the 8 x 10 I scanned this from comes alive with richness that's lost in the scan:


(That was a lot of work, mind. The original picture was created by exposing the print to light half way through the development stage, then continuing the development and fixing. This gave a very dark image. To lighten it up this picture was placed face down on another sheet of paper and exposed to light through the back to create a paper negative, which was developed, placed face down on yet another sheet of paper and exposed through the back to create the final positive image. Including drying time between stages it took a couple of hours. It's faster on a computer, but there's far less sense of achievement.)

[magic surf bus]

Having posed the original question 'where does photography end..', Forum members might like to see where it began - this YouTube clip shows a room in Venezia being converted into a Camera Obscura.

It's taken from an excellent TV series that recently launched on the UK's BBC 4 on Thursday nights entitled 'The Genius of Photography'. Worth looking out for. More details here

[Don Albonico]

Quote C.e.C.v:

I think that the real photographer is that one who take the photo (film or digital) and it's done... the work it's finished... because the art of PHOTOGRAPH, means: draw with LIGHT... thats the definition of photograph, and it never envolves the computer softweres or the modification with chemichals (in the case of films)...
I think that in the moment that you took the picture you are a PHOTOGRAPHER and you made a PHOTO, in the momment that you put it in your computer or in a softwere to modificate it (lights, bright, contrast, or whatever) you have made an IMAGE, but the PHOTOGRAPH has desappear... and you has become into an Image Designer... and that goes for the people that use films too!

>From day 1 the art of photography has changed with the advances in technology. I don't know of any camera that is capable of reproducing what the eye can see. So lets say the final result of a Photograph has been trying to do a simple thing. Reproduce what the eye can see. Then lets say anything the eye did not see at the time of the shutter click was graphic design. Then I would have to conclude that every black & white photograph ever made was graphic design. People do not see in black & white. Humans did not have the technology to reproduce a "photograph" until color film was invented. Take it a little further and no one will ever take a "photograph" until the technology of photography can reproduce what the eye can see. So thats it no one has ever taken a photograph and we are all graphic designers. Hum...dose that mean we get a raise?

[Ryan Calhoun]

Quote Don Albonico:

Then lets say anything the eye did not see at the time of the shutter click was graphic design. Then I would have to conclude that every black & white photograph ever made was graphic design. People do not see in black & white. Humans did not have the technology to reproduce a "photograph" until color film was invented. Take it a little further and no one will ever take a "photograph" until the technology of photography can reproduce what the eye can see.

Don, there's a flaw in your logic. The human eye contains millions of cones, of which 64% respond to "red", 32% to "green", only 2% to "blue" (the remaining 2% accumulated from rounding). The colors are in quotes, because the cones actually respond to different wavelengths of light, not strictly the primary-color photons. These are our daylight color vision, called photopic vision.

By contrast, the rod cells outnumber the cones by a factor of 20. These are much more sensitive to light, capable of detecting a single photon. These are used in night vision, called scotopic vision. The rods' response to color is so low, scotopic vision can be called black and white. (There is a range in which both rods and cones operate, called mesopic vision, which is why it's sometimes possible to make out a dark blue sky late a night).

A person who is colorblind or legally blind has some or all of his cone cells which do not function, but still has working rod cells, and may see the world in partial color or no color. Does his eye not count as a "human eye"? Or should such a person only take photographs which match his partially-colored view of the world?

A person who has myopia (nearsightedness) has an eye which is too long, and the lens focuses the image in front of the retina. The opposite condition, hyperopia (farsightedness), results from a eye which is too short, and the lens focuses behind the retina. Should these people only take pictures which are out of focus, because their eyes are not capable of focusing correctly? If we allow corrective lenses, how about magnifying lenses? Does a picture through a telephoto lens count? What about a picture taken by the Hubble space telescope?

The human eye has a lens and cornea which are increasing absorbative of smaller wavelengths, hence the upper limit of the human visual spectrum at ultraviolet light. But there is a rare condition, which can be surgical or congenital, called aphakia, which allows people so see in the ultraviolet spectrum.

How about something more common. What If I'm wearing polarizing or tinted sunglasses? What if I'm indoors, where there is only incandescent or fluorescent light? What if I'm at a theater or monument, which is being illuminated with white light colored by gels? These cases are all artificial, but can't the human eye still see these things? Does a camera which looks through different lenses and filters really not take a photograph?

Of course we've been talking about one eye, not human vision. Our visual system, like most animals, is binocular, an abstract combination of two offset images, which results in the perception of depth. Our eyes can change depth of focus from an inch to a mile in an instant, and correct perfectly for chromatic and spherical aberration, something which can only be approximated by expensive artificial lenses with dozens of moving components, at hundreds of times the size and weight. Our eyes perform complex edge detection and object recognition and prediction prior to the optic nerve, and each second they process an amount of data which would require a Cray supercomputer many minutes to repeat.

In this point, Don, you are quite correct. There is not a camera or computer system on the planet capable of reproducing what our eyes were designed so well to do every day.

But that's not really the question, is it? The word "photograph" was not invented to describe the function of the human eye. From Greek, "photos" means "light", and "graphein" means "to draw", The modern form was first used by Sir John F.W. Herschel in 1839, to describe the new process first demonstrated by Joseph Nicéphore Niépce in 1827 (he called it "heliography", "helios" meaning "sun&quot. Nowhere in this invention or definition is the requirement that the image be a faithful reproduction of what the eye sees (something which we've already established is impossible anyway).

A photograph is any image drawn by light. It can be UV, IR, radio, microwave, or even visual light. It can be artificial or natural, filtered or polarized, bent, reflected, distorted, or inverted. Having a camera or a lens is not even a requirement. As long as the image was produced by light, it's a photograph.

[Hogan of Grenada]

Hi all,


I am very late coming in on this discussion. The reason I came to this forum was because I looked at a photo taken near a spot where I had taken a photo. I was so impressed with the other photo, I considered deleting mine. I was amazed at how he had captured the sky, it reminded me of a Constable painting. I then started looking at other photos from this 'photographer' and then wondered where he had the time to wait for sunsets on specific days that fell through arches. And then a large full moon over a cathedral, very high in the sky at sunset! It looked really fantastic photo. But anyone that knows the phases of the moon also knows that you cannot get a full moon high in the sky just before sunset. I now realise that many, if not all of this persons photos are, to one degree or another, false. But they are getting great viewing figures and really impressive comments (but not from me)!

This brings us to the reason for Panoramio and Google Earth, in my opinion. I came to Panoramio via Google Earth, as others have. It was to put my realistic photos up so that people can see what the place looks like, at or near ground level and from a position that it is possible to get to. Many of my photos are of areas not yet covered and therefore I am putting up the best that I have but I put them up until there are better ones.

The only 'changes' that I have done (with one exception which I appologize for, more later) is to crop photos and to stitch panoramas. I have also slightly lightened a couple of dark photos. These enhancements are not to make the photo look artistically better, but to fit in with the Google Earth idea of photos of geographic and tourist scenes.

I agree with the person that says there should be a tag, or at least a comment attached to the photo saying ' This photo has been considerably enhanced, the Moon was not there I decided to put it in, oh and it has been greatly colour enhanced, etc etc........'.

The GE photo reviewers do not have the time to study photos to see if they have been altered, lets make their life easier, lets put up genuine photographic images of subject. Put all the clever stuff somewhere else, or have a special bit of Panoramio for these artists, because that is what they are, many deserve to be in art galleries.

My altered photo, is one that I genuinely put up by mistake, where the thumbnail did not show the the 'amendment' which I did for a laugh, ages before I knew about Panoramio. But, now that it has been put up and I see what crazy things others have put up, and realise that by deleting it and putting the original up will delay it going up to GE by 2 months, so will leave it. Well there's a challenge!

I will not mention the photographer that I have issue with, but some of my photos have been taken in the Ely (Cambridgeshire) area!

[VKeith]

Quote Hogan of Grenada:

And then a large full moon over a cathedral, very high in the sky at sunset!

It looked really fantastic photo. But anyone that knows the phases of the moon also knows that you cannot get a full moon high in the sky just before sunset. I now realise that many, if not all of this persons photos are, to one degree or another, false. a!

Hi Hogan and all,

I came across the term "blown sky" somewhere the other day. Having never heard the term, I did some research. I found that a solution offered on some web sites was to layer in a complete sky from another perfect sky photo taken by someone else. In fact, I found a couple of catalogues of skies you can download.

It seems as though some treat the sky as though it's not an integral part of the original scene, rather like a hat you can choose to plop on your head depending on the weather.

I think this is pretty egregious and not appropriate for Panaramio. At least I won't be doing it. I do make use of software to enhance photos. I did one of these "insert a new sky" things for fun and tagged it photoshop. But, at least I took the sky picture myself! It looks surreal as do many of these "photos".

I'll be looking at Ely shortly. I'll bet at least half of my pictures have "blown" skies.

[Hogan of Grenada]

Quote VKeith:

Hi Hogan and all,

I think this is pretty egregious and not appropriate for Panaramio. At least I won't be doing it. I do make use of software to enhance photos. I did one of these "insert a new sky" things for fun and tagged it photoshop. But, at least I took the sky picture myself! It looks surreal as do many of these "photos".

I'll be looking at Ely shortly. I'll bet at least half of my pictures have "blown" skies.

Your last line, I think you meant to say 'half of his photos' not 'half of my' I am sure yours aren't.

If you find the moon one, look at his Glastonbury Tor one. From the direction it was taken it has to be a sunrise, he must be very keen! His camera clock time would be wrong for that. (I can't say anything, my camera still is on Grenada time for my UK shots). Also the grass and the facing side of the tower seem too clear.

I think it is the popularity issue that gets me. The comments are from people that think really think the photographer has spent so much time waiting for the right moment, when really he is sitting at home.

As I have said, this is art (of sorts) and not photography. Yes have fun, but don't 'con' people.

[Matthew Winn]

Quote Hogan of Grenada:

If you find the moon one, look at his Glastonbury Tor one. From the direction it was taken it has to be a sunrise, he must be very keen! His camera clock time would be wrong for that.

Yes. In the UK it's rather unusual for the sun to rise at 11:32 in August. And if you push the brightness and contrast up you can see that the light on the tower is coming from the right. Perhaps there are some full moons over there.

It's not just that it's done that annoys me, but that it's done so badly. I don't really have a problem with adding a delicate touch of light detail to an otherwise bleached sky, but in some of these doctored pictures the light on the clouds is so obviously coming from a different direction from the light on the ground it makes you wonder how anyone could be taken in at all.

[VKeith]

Hogan, I meant MY photos. I often take a reading off my subject and the the sky gets 'blown'. I didn't go back through and count, I just know it happens to me a lot because I shoot where I am when I'm there and often the sky is bright and hazy, and hence ends up looking blown. Oh well. That moon over Ely Cathedral is really hokey. You would never get that detail of the moon in the day either, I don't think.

[magic surf bus]

Oh deary me, with a bit more digital trickery that cathedral picture could easily be transformed into a convincing 1970s sci fi book cover Ely Cathedral would have to have travelled around 120,000 mile into space for the moon to look like that. I mean what was the point of that picture?

Scene - the bridge of the Starship Enterprise..
Sulu: Captain, I'm picking up something unusual on my scanner..
Spock: Fascinating captain, it appears to be a medieval cathedral in orbit around the moon

However, my point is a different one - following on from earlier comments about the camera attempting to match the human eye, another issue is the width of our field of vision. I've recently attached a 0.45 wide angle convertor to an existing 28mm wide angle lens and it's producing some fascinating fisheye type views that have changed my whole perception of how I compose a shot. Nevertheless, even this wide angle doesn't match the width of my own field of vision - for a camera to match what the eye sees it would need a lens system that gave a fisheye field of vision but without the obvious distortion. Is that technically possible?

Also - is the distortion actually there in our eyes but our brains are correcting it?

[Matthew Winn]

I don't think it entirely makes sense to talk about having a lens that matches the field of human vision. The eye sees a wide field of view that is sharp over a very small area in the centre and becomes increasingly fuzzy towards the edges. A photograph is sharp across the frame with a precise edge outside of which there's no image at all.

If, however, you ignore the framing effect, the way to get an image that looks exactly how a person would see the original scene is to view the image from a distance that exactly matches the angle of view of the lens. For example, if a 35mm lens is used to take a picture which is then printed at a magnification of 10x, to see the image the same way as the original scene it must be viewed from a distance of 350mm.

The "distortion" given by wideangle or telephoto lenses is nothing of the sort. It's merely the result of looking at the image from a different distance. If you take a picture with a 500mm lens, print it 10x larger and view it at arm's length the perspective looks compressed. But if you return to the point at which the picture was taken, get someone to hold the print 5 metres away, and then compare the image with the original scene you can see that the perspective is identical. Similarly with wideangles. It even works with fisheyes: if you print or project a fisheye picture on to the inside of a hemispherical bowl and then view the image from the centre of curvature of the bowl you'll see an undistorted image.

But that's not generally what people want from a photograph. Telephoto lenses are used to deliberately flatten perspective in the knowledge that the viewer will be closer than the "correct" distance. In the same way, wideangle lenses are used to emphasis the separation of near and distant objects because the image will be viewed from further away than the "correct" distance.

So the way to get an image that looks just like the original scene is to use any lens you want, then arrange for the image to be viewed from a position that matches the focal length of the lens and the magnification of the image. That may mean viewing telephoto pictures from unusually far or wideangle pictures from unusually close, but it will always work.

(As for the Moon And The Cathedral, did anyone else think "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"?)

[Hogan of Grenada]

Quote Matthew Winn:

(As for the Moon And The Cathedral, did anyone else think "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"?)

I really liked the photograph explanation. Although I am a bit lost on the maths.

As for the cathedral photo, I hadn't considered the sky was falling, It was so obviously fake. I was just upset that I had given good feedback to another one of his photos, that in retrospect was also fake.

By mentioning his photos, we have now increased his count. Maybe some of you could, if you haven't already, make suitable comments on them (which he can then delete)!

[Matthew Winn]

It seems that adding moons to a picture makes it a sure fire hit, so here we go: Caernarfon by moonslight:

[Panamon-Creel]

LOL with that many moons, 1000 hits a week no sweat

[Nawitka]

Love it Matthew. especially the werewolf.

[Don Albonico]

Quote Ryan Calhoun:

Don, there's a flaw in your logic.

Ryan, I was stretching... really really far their. Do I really think their are no photographers, of course not. But (theirs always a but) Would you agree that if their wasn't a moon in the image when you captured it. Then their is a moon in the displayed image. At that point you have moved into graphic design and out of photography? If you agree with that, wheres the line. Hum... I don't like the word Line. I don't know if their is hard border between photography and graphic design. Maybe more like a meandering river between the two. I think most people can tell the difference at the banks of the river. Its wading into the river that gets tricky. Maybe even places were the border almost loops back on its self? Thats what the whole point of this topic is,"wheres the border". I guess my point is their is no hard line.

[Anonymous]

Quote magic surf bus:

Picture 1 : the unaltered original
Picture 2 : very high contrast applied with software
Picture 3 : colourisation filter applied with software

Question: Which is the most valid as a photograph? ..and why?

Why, oh, why did you start all this? I used to just enjoy looking at other peoples photographs but you have spoiled all that. Now I sit there wondering how much is down to the photographer's skill and how much is due to the software manufacturer expertise. I can't look at my favourite photographer's work without feeling they are cheating a bit. This is the last time I read anything in this Forum. Thanks a bundle.

[SantoB]

Quote actongrumpy:

Unfortunately this is one of the issues about this digital age, its become easy for "photos" to be manipulated, in fact in some cases what may appear as a photo may be a purely digital creation.

My own personal opinion is that I shoot a photo as is, and about the only manipulation I've ever tried is to adjust lighting, but even that I'm usually unsuccessful for and discard my attempts.

But thats not to say I consider one as any more pure or asthetically correct. Photography is an art and art is about representation and interpretation. If an author (as an artist) wishes to represent a scene as it was taken, with some modification or with 100% modification then thats how they want the viewer to interpret it, and I'll accept it as it is.

My advise would be not to let it stop you enjoying it, if your curiosity gets the better than you can always ask the author, either way you'll get a positive response - photographers who don't edit their photos will emphatically and produly say as such, and those who dabble in editting will proudly explain how they achieved the end product. Its a win-win.

[magic surf bus]

Quote actongrumpy:

Why, oh, why did you start all this? I used to just enjoy looking at other peoples photographs but you have spoiled all that. Now I sit there wondering how much is down to the photographer's skill and how much is due to the software manufacturer expertise. I can't look at my favourite photographer's work without feeling they are cheating a bit. This is the last time I read anything in this Forum. Thanks a bundle.

You're welcome actongrumpy - if my humble offering has helped extend your appreciation of the photographer's art then my mission is complete.

By way of explanation - in real life I teach Media so my instinct is to instil curiosity about production and representation in different media forms - I just can't help myself. Many of my students tell me they can never view films in quite the same way again after taking my course. Not all of them are being complimentary. Not everybody wants their doors of perception opening any further...

[Florian Eichhorn]

About what magic surf bus said - I personally think that not beeing able to see a mavie as you have allways done before is the price of taking pictures. At leats for me it was.

And about what actongrumpy said - I personally don't have anything against using a software. I enjoy seeing people use it, and making good pictures with it. I mean, everyone is allowed to use sofwares, it is up to them to use it, and when. Some pictures might only look good with the extra effect, some might look stupid with it.

[Hogan of Grenada]

Quote Florian Eichhorn:

About what magic surf bus said - I personally think that not beeing able to see a mavie as you have allways done before is the price of taking pictures. At leats for me it was.

And about what actongrumpy said - I personally don't have anything against using a software. I enjoy seeing people use it, and making good pictures with it. I mean, everyone is allowed to use sofwares, it is up to them to use it, and when. Some pictures might only look good with the extra effect, some might look stupid with it.

I think the thing here is - enhance, but don't over do it. Some photos look like postcards with the colours enhanced to make the place better than it is. Clue, correct the photo to what you felt it was like at the time, the reason you took it in the first pace. The photos that are going to GE should be a good representation of what you would see there. I have only ever tried to correct my photos, not enhance them.

Please no artifical moons, skies from somewhere else, and please no goldfish swimming on clock towers, well if you do, please do not put a pointer up, then it won't get to GE.

Grumpy old Hogan

[Florian Eichhorn]

hehe, yes i agree to that. God fishes, moons and skys are over done in my opinion. Just let the pictre how it was and make some corrections

[© Alan Knox]

Its an interesting question but I think one which is perhaps too simplified to be valid. Unaltered photography is a wonderful way of truthfully displaying the Earth as is, graphic design gives mankind the ability to display the world as perceived through a human lens, both are perhaps separate art forms using the same medium. I'd say graphic deign usually works through a more emotional third eye. Here is one recent graphic edit of mine, the original bridge displayed beside. To be honest I wouldn't really think of comparing the two, they are two completely different modes of expression.

[Hogan of Grenada]

Quote alan knox:

Its an interesting question but I think one which is perhaps too simplified to be valid. Unaltered photography is a wonderful way of truthfully displaying the Earth as is, graphic design gives mankind the ability to display the world as perceived through a human lens, both are perhaps separate art forms using the same medium. I'd say graphic deign usually works through a more emotional third eye. Here is one recent graphic edit of mine, the original bridge displayed beside. To be honest I wouldn't really think of comparing the two, they are two completely different modes of expression.

Alan, thanks for that. I think changing a setting on the camera is not what I was getting at. Each of us could take the same photo using different cameras or have different settings, maybe by acident, and as far as I am concerned all would be suitable for GE (although some may be better than others). What I was against was adding flying goldfish, or even changing the sky to something that wasn't there in the first place.

Having said that, I am guilty of that very crime, but in my case I was removing something, not adding (The power lines)-


Where do we draw the line - and I mean for Google Earth, not for Panoramio. In my humble opinion, people looking at GE are not doing it to see how clever someone is at manipulating photos on a computer, they are studying somewhere on the planet, maybe with a mind to go there. Leave the pointer off photos that are blatantly wrong (maybe that should include my second one above)?

[© Alan Knox]

Quote Hogan of Grenada:

Alan, thanks for that. I think changing a setting on the camera is not what I was getting at. Each of us could take the same photo using different cameras or have different settings, maybe by acident, and as far as I am concerned all would be suitable for GE (although some may be better than others). What I was against was adding flying goldfish, or even changing the sky to something that wasn't there in the first place.

Having said that, I am guilty of that very crime, but in my case I was removing something, not adding (The power lines)-


Where do we draw the line - and I mean for Google Earth, not for Panoramio. In my humble opinion, people looking at GE are not doing it to see how clever someone is at manipulating photos on a computer, they are studying somewhere on the planet, maybe with a mind to go there. Leave the pointer off photos that are blatantly wrong (maybe that should include my second one above)?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean with regards to changing a setting on the camera, I edited the first shot of the bridge on Photoshop, nothing to do with the camera. To be honest, I think your comment is a clear indication with the main problem in Panoramio: a lack of appreciation for the wonders of the imagination in photography/editing, (by both user's and GE editors) too much nitpicking with regards to what should and shouldn't go into GE until, like I say in my other post, no-one is really sure what should or shouldn't be put into GE as there is too much emphasis on selectivity minus the artistic appreciation which goes into selecting the photos. I'm sure I've been guilty of it too.

I daresay the selection of photos like my goldfish swimming in Big Ben is a deliberate move by Panoramio/GE to move towards greater appreciation of imaginative/abstract edits in user's photos, I could be wrong. Although as I've said before its selection stumped even myself.

[tempestlight]

Photography can be both literal or interpretive. Painting also can be literal and/or interpretive. Sculpture can also be literal and/or interpretive. Most aftforms involve depicting things either literally or interpretively.

Photography is both an artistic medium and a literal medium. I don't know for sure where the line is between the two but the same is often true in other art forms. I appreciate both forms but I must admit that I prefer a little artistic input to none at all. Most of the snapshot images on GE are pretty boring and not very good interpretations of the locations they present. For example a camera has a limited exposure latitude compared to the human eye. Doesn't that mean that boring snapshot photos of landscapes where the sky is blown out are not actual literal renditions of the scene because the camera could not capture the scenes true dynamic range? And if I come along and use a ND grad filter to bring the sky back and get the scene looking like it does to the human eye doesn't that make my image more realistic than the snapshot?

My two cents worth.

[Hogan of Grenada]

Quote tempestlight:

Photography can be both literal or interpretive. Painting also can be literal and/or interpretive. Sculpture can also be literal and/or interpretive. Most aftforms involve depicting things either literally or interpretively.

Photography is both an artistic medium and a literal medium. I don't know for sure where the line is between the two but the same is often true in other art forms. I appreciate both forms but I must admit that I prefer a little artistic input to none at all. Most of the snapshot images on GE are pretty boring and not very good interpretations of the locations they present. For example a camera has a limited exposure latitude compared to the human eye. Doesn't that mean that boring snapshot photos of landscapes where the sky is blown out are not actual literal renditions of the scene because the camera could not capture the scenes true dynamic range? And if I come along and use a ND grad filter to bring the sky back and get the scene looking like it does to the human eye doesn't that make my image more realistic than the snapshot?

My two cents worth.

I have no problem with filters or even some software giggerypokery to bring back what was there. My issue is with things that weren't there, at least for GE! Put them to Panoramio, for that community to see, but do not put pointers on, thus avoiding it going to GE.

[gregovich]

[Galatas ©]

Three year old thread.