When is a photograph not a photograph
Mike Warren
into graphic creation?
We start by perhaps burning in the sky and changing the white
balance.
Intermediate stages would be things like adding a colour cast
or removing faint telephone lines.
What about removing a background digitally to achieve the same
result that could have been done by placing a piece of black card
behind a macro shot?
Adding a better sky is now easy and seems to be fairly common.
I'm curious about what people think about this.
-Mike
PS. I'm talking about art photography not photojournalism.
Celcius
To me, everything revolves around "one's conception" of photography. In a
world where manipulation of a photo has become common place, the
photographer has the leeway to express him(her)self through the taking of
the photo and subsequent "arrangement".
While some painters would painfully "recreate" a certain scene, others would
seek more freedom and express themselves in other ways. This opened up the
way to many schools of painting. This is referred to as art (rubbish to
some).
In the same way, photographers are free to express themselves if they so
wish, using different lenses, filters and post photography manipulation.
This is not the same as modifying the photo to "trick the observer" or in
short, a photo that "lies". Sometimes, a particular scenery has "burned
itself into my mind". It is possible then to try recreate a particular mood,
say one of peace and tranquility. Arranging the photo to give the observer
this same feeling is indeed art, at least to my mind. This is NOT "trick
photography".
However, although Photoshop and the likes of it are in many people's houses,
although simple to operate, they do not confer good taste to every user. All
we need to remember is the advent of desktop publishing and the atrocious
flyers that people produced, with too many fonts, bolds and underlined, not
forgetting thick lines around text, etc.
Cheers,
Marcel
PS This should be an interesting an vigorous thread.
"Mike Warren" <miwa-not...@or-this-cairnscarsound.com.au> wrote in
message news:430322dd$0$83586$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
Mr. Mark
> Adding a better sky is now easy and seems to be fairly common.
It was even more common when back in the days B&W film strongly favored blue
light.
> At what point does graphic manipulation convert a photograph
> into graphic creation?
As soon as you press the shutter button. :)
IOW, IMO it's all the same.
--
Mark
Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Mike Warren
>> Adding a better sky is now easy and seems to be fairly common.
>
> It was even more common when back in the days B&W film strongly
> favored blue light.
I mean changing the sky completely. Darkening it by using
orange or red filters on B&W is less severe since just having
the picture in B&W is already changing it.
>> At what point does graphic manipulation convert a photograph
>> into graphic creation?
>
> As soon as you press the shutter button. :)
>
> IOW, IMO it's all the same.
Changing tone and contrast etc are mild forms of manipulation
which I don't have a problem with but adding a rock from one
picture into another is going too far.
I just can't decide where to draw the line.
Removing power lines and other man made objects from a
landscape to me is just as fake but the picture is destroyed by
leaving them in.
-Mike
Mike Warren
> In the same way, photographers are free to express themselves if they
> so wish, using different lenses, filters and post photography
> manipulation. This is not the same as modifying the photo to "trick
> the observer" or in short, a photo that "lies". Sometimes, a
> particular scenery has "burned itself into my mind". It is possible
> then to try recreate a particular mood, say one of peace and
> tranquility. Arranging the photo to give the observer this same
> feeling is indeed art, at least to my mind. This is NOT "trick
> photography".
When I see an amazing landscape I don't initially notice the car parked
in the middle of it but if I were to look at a photo of the same scene the
car would jump out at me.
> However, although Photoshop and the likes of it are in many people's
> houses, although simple to operate, they do not confer good taste to
> every user. All we need to remember is the advent of desktop
> publishing and the atrocious flyers that people produced, with too
> many fonts, bolds and underlined, not forgetting thick lines around
> text, etc.
That's the problem. With Photoshop anything can be done. I took
a photograph of my niece and her husband a few years ago when
they got married on a tropical island and placed them in a snow
scene as a joke. It looked real but should it be presented to a
viewer without explanation?
-Mike
kz8rt3
"Mike Warren" <miwa-not...@or-this-cairnscarsound.com.au> wrote:
I think this is one example that would make it digital art.
If there were telephone lines there, the picture should not have been
taken in the first place.
Although you might be able to uses inks on the film print to remove the
lines it is quite laborious and I would just not bother with it.
Maybe it's the fact that in digital you are able to make every shot a
keeper makes it digital.
>
> -Mike
Don Stauffer
This question has a long history. It is not unique to digital
photography. An accomplished darkroom person can do a LOT to a film
negative or transparency.
In fact, one of the earliest questions was, "is it art?" That is,
painters felt there was no such thing as an art photograph. If it wasn't
done entirely by hand, it wasn't art. Thank goodness we have come a
long way from that.
However, I think the question is of philosophical interest only, and is
not really an important question for art photography. For
photojournalism, though, it is indeed an important question.
Proteus
> At what point does graphic manipulation convert a photograph
> into graphic creation?
...
An art teacher at my college once told me that even photographs are a form
of abstract art-- less so than a painting perhaps, but still abstract. Even
when you take a picture of someone, it is not real; tones, shades, lens
distortion of object size, loss of color if b/w, and so on make all
photographs a form of abstraction of the real world. So there is no "point"
at which manipulation of photo changes it into a graphic creation, the
original photo already is a graphic creation.
Mark˛
"Proteus" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:N7IMe.11744$0E5....@fe05.lga...
The real question is one of purpose.
If the purpose is to represent a captured piece of reality, or "moment in
time," then the manual exclusion or introduction of any subject/object
element would negate the legitimacy of that true moment of reality. White
balance and other minor adjustments are not relevant to that question so
long as the goal is to render the most humanly-perceived rendition of the
reality.
In this most strict sense, this "rule" would be limited primarily to
documentary photography.
Any area other than documentary is entirely debatable, and will never be
settled in mutual agreement.
This is why one must understand one's own intent as a happy-snapping
photog...AND...one's audience/client/end-use as a pro or PJ.
The rest of the palaver is all moonshine because it's entirely dependant
upon who is asking and who is answering the question. Opinions will forever
remain all over the board, and will continually ebb and flow with the times.
Mark
wilt
>into graphic creation?
My definition (whether film or digital) accentuating or minimizing what
is in the original photo (dodging, burning, toning) is a after-photo
'alteration', and filters on lenses are a before-photo 'alteration'.
Using Photoshop to lighten, darken, increase contrast, or remove redeye
is 'alteration', and even to posterize or solarize the photo is
'alteration'.
In comparison, deleting or adding something to the scene which was not
present in the scene at the time the photo was taken is 'graphic
creation'. Period. When I use the 'clouds' feature of Photoshop to
fill the sky on my photograph of a castle in Ireland, that is 'graphic
creation', or putting an Eskimo into the Sahara Desert (without flying
him there) is 'graphic creation'.
--Wilt
Stuart Noble
I wonder about some of the images people have been sent to prison for
here in UK. Seems to me that pixels arranged in a certain way on a
computer screen cannot logically constitute a criminal offence,
particularly if no one can identify the participants. How is it
different to a picture I might paint and, if it was in the style of
Picasso, who could say what the underlying sentiments were?
I'm all in favour of the police clamping down on this stuff but I wonder
if the basic concept has been seriously challenged in the courts.
Mr. Mark
> >> Adding a better sky is now easy and seems to be fairly common.
> >
> > It was even more common when back in the days B&W film strongly
> > favored blue light.
>
> I mean changing the sky completely.
So do I. In the early days they needed rather long exposures and the sky
would often go white. So it was supposedly common practice to have stock
photos of properly exposed sky laying around to use as backgrounds for shots
that would otherwise have white (aka zone 10) skies.
> > IOW, IMO it's all the same.
>
> Changing tone and contrast etc are mild forms of manipulation
> which I don't have a problem with but adding a rock from one
> picture into another is going too far.
heh heh.. you said "manipulation" heh heh..
I disagree (but this is purely personal opinion). I think the photographer
has absolute artistic license. For me what ever the photographer does to
evoke the desired response from the viewer is fine. Personally I don't do
much PS work at all: crop; contrast; dodge; burn; color boost at times -
that's it. But others I know do much more and in a way that adds to their
artistic expression rather than detracts.
I think it's less important to classify art forms than it is to express one
self through what ever medium works.
> I just can't decide where to draw the line.
In the end you have to do what makes you feel comfortable. Just call it
"art" instead of photography or graphic design. Then all things are
possible. :)
> Removing power lines and other man made objects from a
> landscape to me is just as fake but the picture is destroyed by
> leaving them in.
Sometimes it is possible to take the photo without the power lines included.
If you are going to go the purist route, and there's nothing wrong with that
IMO, then you want to accomplish as much of the work at shutter time as
possible. I suck so bad at photography that I don't usually notice power
lines until the photo is framed and hanging on the wall. :)
Mr. Mark
message
> That's the problem. With Photoshop anything can be done. I took
> a photograph of my niece and her husband a few years ago when
> they got married on a tropical island and placed them in a snow
> scene as a joke. It looked real but should it be presented to a
> viewer without explanation?
Depends on your intentions. If you are trying to trick millions of
Americans into believing there are WMD in a small country in the Middle East
it might be a bit unethical to present the photo without explanation. If
you are trying to make a social commentary through satire, then no problem.
Probably everyone has somewhat different standards of ethics, but as long as
you're not hurting anyone it's ok in my book.
Keep in mind that ALL photos are lies. The world is color, yet many of us
shoot in B&W. The world is 3D, but we render it as 2 dimensional. We shoot
from strange angles to create fresh perspective. We put makeup on before
portrait shoots and use artificial lighting. And so on and so on...
In a very real sense, the very act of taking a photo is the act of telling a
lie.
Ansel Adams referred taking a photo as as creating the desired "departure
from reality".
So there you go. :)
Proteus
I totally agree. Completely a matter of degrees, how much a photo is
distorted for the sake of art, from the original portraying the subject as
closely as possible regarding shape, features, etc to distortions of object
edges, colors, introducing new objects or removing objects from a photo,
etc. Even the mere fact that a photo crops out subjects is a form of
distortion-- the human head/eye can pan and scan a scene and take in more
info than the limited cropped subjects of a photo that tell a story.
Annika1980
>Americans into believing there are WMD in a small country in the Middle East
>it might be a bit unethical to present the photo without explanation.
Ah, who needs photos?
What are ya, some sort of liberal leftist wacko?
>Keep in mind that ALL photos are lies.
Very well said.
Guess that makes me a good liar.
Mr. Mark
> If there were telephone lines there, the picture should not have been
> taken in the first place.
>
> Although you might be able to uses inks on the film print to remove the
> lines it is quite laborious and I would just not bother with it.
Certainly cloning wasn't invented by Adobe. ;)
In practice I tend to strive toward this same purist view of photography,
but in theory I think the very act of creating a 2D image and pushing it
through a wire to a printer is as un-true editing out the powerlines. My
standard argument goes something like this: The photo of the place isn't the
place and you can't actually experience the place through the photo. So it
doesn't make any difference what you do to the photo after the fact - there
is no way you can actually make the photo any less real because it is
already un-true, fake, a sham. I think it was Plato who was anti-art for
this very reason - art removes people from reality and it is 2 degrees of
separation from the realm of ideals. Plato was an ass, but his point isn't
totally lost on me.
> Maybe it's the fact that in digital you are able to make every shot a
> keeper makes it digital.
If that were true there wouldn't be so many really shitty snapshots all over
the web. ;)
Even though digital manipulation saves time and makes photo editing more
accessible to the masses, it doesn't replace a good eye or technical and
aesthetic ability.
Mr. Mark
> not really an important question for art photography. For
> photojournalism, though, it is indeed an important question.
Excellent point. Digital manipulation of aerial photos aimed at defrauding
a city development board, for example, is not the same as creating a really
cool Absolute Vodka advert. :)
Mr. Mark
> An art teacher at my college once told me that even photographs are a form
> of abstract art-- less so than a painting perhaps, but still abstract.
Even
> when you take a picture of someone, it is not real; tones, shades, lens
> distortion of object size, loss of color if b/w, and so on make all
> photographs a form of abstraction of the real world. So there is no
"point"
> at which manipulation of photo changes it into a graphic creation, the
> original photo already is a graphic creation.
Perfectly put IMO.
Brian Baird
will e
Another question, "Is it hotter in the South or in the Summer?" Will E.
"Mike Warren" <miwa-not...@or-this-cairnscarsound.com.au> wrote in
message news:430322dd$0$83586$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
Celcius
to anyone how one sees that ruin? It does for the one concerned. So why not
make it as one wants to remember that ruin? ;-)
Marcel
"Mr. Mark" <e.ca...@southpark.com> wrote in message
news:xOJMe.35666$dJ5....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Mr. Mark
> >Americans into believing there are WMD in a small country in the Middle
East
> >it might be a bit unethical to present the photo without explanation.
>
> Ah, who needs photos?
> What are ya, some sort of liberal leftist wacko?
OMG! - If you knew me you'd laugh that you asked that. I have a reputation
for being so right wing I make Bush look like a bleeding heart liberal. :)
> >Keep in mind that ALL photos are lies.
>
> Very well said.
> Guess that makes me a good liar.
You are indeed. I was admiring your photos again today. Too bad about the
Baylor thing. ;)
Ken Burns
> Mr. Mark wrote:
>>> Adding a better sky is now easy and seems to be fairly common.
>>
>> It was even more common when back in the days B&W film strongly
>> favored blue light.
>
> I mean changing the sky completely. Darkening it by using
> orange or red filters on B&W is less severe since just having
> the picture in B&W is already changing it.
Actually, in the early days of B&W phototgraphy, skies were changed
completely in the darkroom, not just altered by using filters at the camera.
The plates of those days were extremely sensitive to blue light and
extremely insensitive to red light. This resulted in photos that had
totally washed out skies because the general overall exposure that produced
a workable negative of the landscape was far greater than what was needed to
get a properly exposed sky. Most landscape photographers had an inventory
of properly exposed glass plates of skies and clouds that they used by
masking and dodging & burning during double exposures when printing to get
good detail in both the land & the sky. I guess for a specific scene they
could also expose one plate for the sky and one for the land and then do a
double expsure in the darkroom printing.
Ron Hunter
However, adding, removing, or changing any significant picture element
would do that, in my opinion, which manipulations of color, and lighting
to make the picture better represent what the photographer saw would
retain the 'photograph' designation. Just my opinion.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Frank ess
> "Proteus" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote
>
>> An art teacher at my college once told me that even photographs are
>> a form of abstract art-- less so than a painting perhaps, but still
>> abstract. Even when you take a picture of someone, it is not real;
>> tones, shades, lens distortion of object size, loss of color if
>> b/w,
>> and so on make all photographs a form of abstraction of the real
>> world. So there is no "point" at which manipulation of photo
>> changes
>> it into a graphic creation, the original photo already is a graphic
>> creation.
>
> Perfectly put IMO.
Well, then.
I imagine ol' Proteus' furrowed forehead as he contemplates the
teacher's assertion, and thereby abstract a graphic in my mind's eye.
Somehow I manage to render that graphic into an interperable
representation of Proteus at work in the fields of creativity.
Although my product does not correspond in any of four palpable
dimensions, and is not an actual photograph of Proteus in particular,
my intent is that it be seen as Proteus' front head aspect, and I so
title it:
"The Face of Proteus"
My abstraction is a bit farther removed than is someone's photo
impression gleaned from actual reflected light from actual Proteus'
rostrum and associated areas, but there it is. I have made a photo of
Proteus' face.
If I'd had some genuinely Proteus-influenced photons to channel, would
that be obvious to the casual observer? No.
Could I, given sufficient familiarity, conjure up a Proteus Face
similar enough to himself's actual configuration to obtain a "Yes"
estimate from 95% of his acquaintances, and without using a single
photon ever bounced off Proteus? Yes.
So, is the fact of photography resident in the substance of a
representation, in the intent of the intender, or in the "eye" of the
beholder?
None of the above: it's in the process:
My extraction of appropriate elements from the environment and
presentation of them results ( I always hope ) in an apprehension of
my intent. No one of the segments of the process exists without the
others. No element appears the same to all observers. The only
constant is the fact of the process, and the only evidence of that is
the play of shadows on a cave wall.
--
Frank ess
"In this universe there are things that just
don't yield to thinking—plain or fancy—Dude".
—J. Spicoli, PolyPartyPerson
Frank ess
> Try this for starters, http://www.answers.com/topic/graphic .
>
> Another question, "Is it hotter in the South or in the Summer?" Will
> E.
The South is hotter than a string is long, and
the Summer is as hot as the sky is blue.
Brian
Brian
photograph is generally accepted as a photograph, regardless of how it
ends up. Ex: convert the photo to a watercolor in photoshow, and print
it on watercolor art texture paper, and it is still a photograph. This
keeps thing very simple. Brian
Mark˛
"Brian" <br...@showprints.com> wrote in message
news:1124306880.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
By your definition, a hand-painted painting based on a photograph (an
activity many painters do) is still a photograph. So there it is.
:)
Mark˛
> Mike Warren wrote..
>
>> >> Adding a better sky is now easy and seems to be fairly common.
>> >
>> > It was even more common when back in the days B&W film strongly
>> > favored blue light.
>>
>> I mean changing the sky completely.
>
> So do I. In the early days they needed rather long exposures and the sky
> would often go white. So it was supposedly common practice to have stock
> photos of properly exposed sky laying around to use as backgrounds for
> shots
> that would otherwise have white (aka zone 10) skies.
>
>> > IOW, IMO it's all the same.
>>
>> Changing tone and contrast etc are mild forms of manipulation
>> which I don't have a problem with but adding a rock from one
>> picture into another is going too far.
>
> heh heh.. you said "manipulation" heh heh..
OK--I know Bret is Butthead...
...Should we assume you're Beavis?
kz8rt3
"Mr. Mark" <e.ca...@southpark.com> wrote:
> "kz8rt3" <kz8...@mail.com> wrote
>
> > If there were telephone lines there, the picture should not have been
> > taken in the first place.
> >
> > Although you might be able to uses inks on the film print to remove the
> > lines it is quite laborious and I would just not bother with it.
>
> Certainly cloning wasn't invented by Adobe. ;)
No, cloning was created by Micro$oft. HE HE!
>
> In practice I tend to strive toward this same purist view of photography,
> but in theory I think the very act of creating a 2D image and pushing it
> through a wire to a printer is as un-true editing out the powerlines. My
> standard argument goes something like this: The photo of the place isn't the
> place and you can't actually experience the place through the photo. So it
> doesn't make any difference what you do to the photo after the fact - there
> is no way you can actually make the photo any less real because it is
> already un-true, fake, a sham. I think it was Plato who was anti-art for
> this very reason - art removes people from reality and it is 2 degrees of
> separation from the realm of ideals. Plato was an ass, but his point isn't
> totally lost on me.
>
> > Maybe it's the fact that in digital you are able to make every shot a
> > keeper makes it digital.
>
> If that were true there wouldn't be so many really shitty snapshots all over
> the web. ;)
The two are in agreement I think. People take way more photos with a
digital camera then with film. And if the images do not take up physical
space, like a negative and a print, they are less likely to see how bad
their images are.
I think people who shoot digital should be forced to make prints of all
their files so they can see how much crap they have. :^)
>
> Even though digital manipulation saves time and makes photo editing more
> accessible to the masses, it doesn't replace a good eye or technical and
> aesthetic ability.
Amen brother. We create so many things to help us save time and it only
makes the world look uglier.
I had a another thought when I dropped off some film today.
First, both techniques lead to graphic creations. But, as you said about
art, the same applies to words, the symbol is not the thing. So I
thought about what "graphic" means.
(When I am in a place like this with others I always refer to Websters:)
Main Entry: 1graphic
Pronunciation: 'gra-fik
Variant(s): also graphical /-fi-k&l/
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin graphicus, from Greek graphikos, from graphein
1 : formed by writing, drawing, or engraving
2 usually graphic a : marked by clear lifelike or vividly realistic
description b : vividly or plainly shown or described
3 a : of or relating to the pictorial arts; also : PICTORIAL b : of,
relating to, or involving such reproductive methods as those of
engraving, etching, lithography, photography, serigraphy, and woodcut c
: of or relating to the art of printing
I think the term "graphic creation" by the OP was meant to be "digital
creation" (OP, correct me). So I think the separation there is clear.
It's Digital vs Analog.
So what is photography?
Main Entry: pho暗og斟a搆hy
Pronunciation: f&-'t-gr&-fE
Function: noun
: the art or process of producing images on a sensitized surface (as a
film) by the action of radiant energy and especially light.
So I see the distinction as between photography and digital photography.
Sort of like marriage and gay marriage. :^) It's a qualifier.
So when you start with a digital camera you can't call it photography
anymore. It is digital photography. But after thinking about it I
wouldn't even call digital photography photography at all.
It's like the separation between oil painting and acrylic painting. They
are both still paintings.
(Putting on my bee keepers suit.)
Nostrobino
> "Mike Warren" <miwa-not...@or-this-cairnscarsound.com.au> wrote in
> message
>
>> That's the problem. With Photoshop anything can be done. I took
>> a photograph of my niece and her husband a few years ago when
>> they got married on a tropical island and placed them in a snow
>> scene as a joke. It looked real but should it be presented to a
>> viewer without explanation?
>
> Depends on your intentions. If you are trying to trick millions of
> Americans into believing there are WMD in a small country in the Middle
> East
Oh, good grief.
Talk about dragging your political agenda in by the left hind foot . . .
N.
kz8rt3
"Mr. Mark" <e.ca...@southpark.com> wrote:
> Ansel Adams referred taking a photo as as creating the desired "departure
> from reality".
>
> So there you go. :)
The only purpose of any work of art is to communicate what can't be put
into words.
"It is like two artists who paint the same scene. If you try to find
unity in those two pictures on the canvas, you will be utterly confused;
but if you perceive the scene itself, you will find there the unity that
has been translated into two different expressions."
J. Krisnamurti
imp
of particular techniques, but this has clearly crossed the line:
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=8771
Mr. Mark
> > Americans into believing there are WMD in a small country in the Middle
> > East
>
> Oh, good grief.
>
> Talk about dragging your political agenda in by the left hind foot . . .
Not at all. I'm pro war. Just don't think we need to make up excuses to
invade evil countries. That they are evil should be reason enough.
Mr. Mark
> > If that were true there wouldn't be so many really shitty snapshots all
over
> > the web. ;)
>
> The two are in agreement I think. People take way more photos with a
> digital camera then with film. And if the images do not take up physical
> space, like a negative and a print, they are less likely to see how bad
> their images are.
>
> I think people who shoot digital should be forced to make prints of all
> their files so they can see how much crap they have. :^)
<g!!>
Someone once asked what I did with all the photos I take. I showed them 3
medium sized moving boxes full of photos. "These are the ones I thought were
good enough to keep" :)
<snip>
> I think the term "graphic creation" by the OP was meant to be "digital
> creation" (OP, correct me). So I think the separation there is clear.
> It's Digital vs Analog.
I'm not convinced. I think he was questioning at what point does editing
the photograph change its nature from that of a photograph to that of
something more like a painting or similarly created graphic art piece.
> So what is photography?
>
> Main Entry: pho暗og斟a搆hy
> Pronunciation: f&-'t-gr&-fE
> Function: noun
> : the art or process of producing images on a sensitized surface (as a
> film) by the action of radiant energy and especially light.
>
> So I see the distinction as between photography and digital photography.
> Sort of like marriage and gay marriage. :^) It's a qualifier.
>
> So when you start with a digital camera you can't call it photography
> anymore. It is digital photography. But after thinking about it I
> wouldn't even call digital photography photography at all.
Based on the definition I think you CAN call it photography and don't need
to make the distinction. The definition says "sensitized surface." If the
digital sensor isn't a sensitized surface it's not anything at all. :)
> It's like the separation between oil painting and acrylic painting. They
> are both still paintings.
Maybe I misunderstood your statement that you wouldn't call digital
photography photography at all then? Paiting is painting, regardless of the
tools used. So photography is photography, regardless of the tool (unless
the tool's a brush and then it's painting <g>)..
heh heh... I said "tool" <g>
Mr. Mark
news:CEMMe.2897$ct5.2008@fed1read04...
Hmm.. that's food for thought.
Mike Warren
>> That's the problem. With Photoshop anything can be done. I took
>> a photograph of my niece and her husband a few years ago when
>> they got married on a tropical island and placed them in a snow
>> scene as a joke. It looked real but should it be presented to a
>> viewer without explanation?
>
> Americans into believing there are WMD in a small country in the
> Middle East
Not with a photo of a newly married couple in the snow.
-Mike
Mike Warren
>> Maybe it's the fact that in digital you are able to make every shot a
>> keeper makes it digital.
>
> If that were true there wouldn't be so many really shitty snapshots
> all over the web. ;)
Have you been sneeking a look at my photos?
-Mike
Mike Warren
> I think the term "graphic creation" by the OP was meant to be "digital
> creation" (OP, correct me). So I think the separation there is clear.
> It's Digital vs Analog.
No. Digital just makes it easier. I'm talking about created art as opposed
to recording a scene because the scene itself is the art. (as seen by the
photographer).
-Mike
Mike Warren
> First let's define what you call a "Photograph". Are Moholy-Nagy's
> Photograms, Photographs?
>
> Is directly minipulated Polaroid film, a photograph?
I don't really know. That's why I posed the question.
-Mike
Mike Warren
> Thus spake Mike Warren unto the assembled multitudes:
>> At what point does graphic manipulation convert a photograph
>> into graphic creation?
>
> *any* manipulation is done to the originally captured image. After
> that, it's just an image with photographic origin. I think the word
> is Greek in origin, translating literally as "light written" or
> "light writing" or something like that.
But there are almost no photographs that haven't had something done
to them. Even using B&W lies to the viewer about what colours exsisted
in the scene. However, here the viewer already knows that the colours
have been removed.
I like heavily modified photos, but presenting them without some form
of explanation is wrong. The problem I have is: at what point is an
explanation required.
-Mike
Mr. Mark
> However, adding, removing, or changing any significant picture element
> would do that, in my opinion, which manipulations of color, and lighting
> to make the picture better represent what the photographer saw would
> retain the 'photograph' designation. Just my opinion.
What the photographer saw in his head as the representation of the scene?
Or what he /thought/ he saw as a realistic interpretation of the scene? A
photographer visualizes the final product before he snaps the shutter. He
can create mood by changing the level of exposure, aperture size, camera
placement. In each of these decisions he is choosing to interpret the
scene. What if he decides to move a glass of wine 3 inches to the left for
better composition before taking the photo? Did he just make a graphic
creation? What if he does it after? Does timing change the fact that the
process began with a camera? What about cropping 20 photos and pasting them
together to create a collage? Is that a graphic creation or photography or
both?
Keeping in mind that Mike said...
> > -Mike
> > PS. I'm talking about art photography not photojournalism.
Mr. Mark
news:de06fv$a82$4...@south.jnrs.ja.net...
> Thus spake Mike Warren unto the assembled multitudes:
> > At what point does graphic manipulation convert a photograph
> > into graphic creation?
>
> I would contend that a photograph stops being a photograph as soon as
*any*
> manipulation is done to the originally captured image. After that, it's
> just an image with photographic origin. I think the word is Greek in
> origin, translating literally as "light written" or "light writing" or
> something like that.
So the very moment you develop the film, it is no longer a photograph? Or
in the digital world the very moment the camera runs it's noise reducing
algorithm, applies white balance, and compresses to JPG it is no longer a
photograph?
I'll have to rename my storage folder from "Photos" to "Images Derived Via
Photographic Processes" <g>
Celcius
How does a camera that captures an original image not "manipulate"?
What of the lens? We see 180 degress + How does a 50mm compare? How about a
28mm?
What about the automatic WB?
A photograph is the capture of AN image. How well it does it is another
matter.
Marcel
"Andy Clews" <A.C...@DENTURESsussex.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:de06fv$a82$4...@south.jnrs.ja.net...
> Thus spake Mike Warren unto the assembled multitudes:
> > At what point does graphic manipulation convert a photograph
> > into graphic creation?
>
> I would contend that a photograph stops being a photograph as soon as
*any*
> manipulation is done to the originally captured image. After that, it's
> just an image with photographic origin. I think the word is Greek in
> origin, translating literally as "light written" or "light writing" or
> something like that.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Andy Clews University of Sussex IT Services
> (Remove DENTURES if replying by email)
>
Mr. Mark
> > *any* manipulation is done to the originally captured image. After
> > that, it's just an image with photographic origin. I think the word
> > is Greek in origin, translating literally as "light written" or
> > "light writing" or something like that.
>
> But there are almost no photographs that haven't had something done
> to them. Even using B&W lies to the viewer about what colours exsisted
> in the scene.
Unless the viewer is very familiar with the wavelength response curves for
the film. <g>
> I like heavily modified photos, but presenting them without some form
> of explanation is wrong. The problem I have is: at what point is an
> explanation required.
Reminds me of the car commercials that have small print at the bottom of the
TV screen "Filmed on close course with professional driver."
I don't think you have to say anything to the viewer. Art is about the
viewer's interpretation of what they see and if how it was created is a bit
of a mystery, then all the better IMO.
Mr. Mark
message
> > If that were true there wouldn't be so many really shitty snapshots
> > all over the web. ;)
>
> Have you been sneeking a look at my photos?
No, but I stopped by my own site today.. OMG! I suck! :)
Mr. Mark
> > Americans into believing there are WMD in a small country in the
> > Middle East
>
> Not with a photo of a newly married couple in the snow.
ROFL! I guess not. :)
Paul Schilter
Paul
Mr. Mark wrote:
snipped
Chris Brown
Mike Warren <miwa-not...@or-this-cairnscarsound.com.au> wrote:
>At what point does graphic manipulation convert a photograph
>into graphic creation?
>
>balance.
>
>Intermediate stages would be things like adding a colour cast
>or removing faint telephone lines.
Adujstring the colour balance, contrast, etc. to more accurately reflect the
way you perceived the scene when you took the photograph isn't something
that I'd regard as "cheating" in this regard. However, removing objects in
the scene, or:
>What about removing a background digitally to achieve the same
>result that could have been done by placing a piece of black card
>behind a macro shot?
...is probably a step beyond the position where I'd be happy to call the
result a photograph.
The following may be of interest:
Nostrobino
>> > Depends on your intentions. If you are trying to trick millions of
>> > Americans into believing there are WMD in a small country in the Middle
>> > East
>>
>> Oh, good grief.
>>
>> Talk about dragging your political agenda in by the left hind foot . . .
>
> Not at all. I'm pro war. Just don't think we need to make up excuses to
> invade evil countries. That they are evil should be reason enough.
But you think someone (presumably the Bush administration) was "trying to
trick millions of Americans into believing there are WMD in a small country
in the Middle East"? Which means you think Bush et al. never really believed
that there were any such weapons. It's not the fault of bad intelligence or
anything like that, but a deliberate lie to the American people? You're in
the camp that claims to actually believe that, and promotes it as an honest
assessment?
N.
Annika1980
>of explanation is wrong.
The final presentation IS the explanation.
Annika1980
>Not at all. I'm pro war.
That's about like being pro cancer.
Can we assume you're posting from Iraq?
If not, why not?
Mike Warren
>> Removing power lines and other man made objects from a
>> landscape to me is just as fake but the picture is destroyed by
>> leaving them in.
>
> I think this is one example that would make it digital art.
>
> If there were telephone lines there, the picture should not have been
> taken in the first place.
Here's an example: I took a picture of some rolling hills with a farm
house about a week ago. I could see two power lines cutting across
the top right of the frame. I could have moved forward about 15 feet
and lost the power lines but that would have required me levitating
about 10 feet off the ground.I was standing at the edge of a steep
hill. Going down the hill would have lost the angle I wanted.
Instead, I just removed the power lines in Photoshop.
I *could* have taken the picture exactly how I wanted but would have
had to do something like hire a cherry picker.
-Mike
kz8rt3
"Mr. Mark" <e.ca...@southpark.com> wrote:
> > So when you start with a digital camera you can't call it photography
> > anymore. It is digital photography. But after thinking about it I
> > wouldn't even call digital photography photography at all.
>
> Based on the definition I think you CAN call it photography and don't need
> to make the distinction. The definition says "sensitized surface." If the
> digital sensor isn't a sensitized surface it's not anything at all. :)
I gave this a lot of thought in the past.
"the art or process of producing images on a sensitized surface (as a
film) by the action of radiant energy and especially light."
So I thought, is the surface of film the same as the surface of the CMOS?
There is no real "surface" in a digital camera. If the CMOS is the
surface then why isn't the image there? So maybe you can say the surface
is the Flash Card. But that surface is reformatted and reused and can
you point to it? There is no surface until it is printed, and that is
mostly done by ink, not by light. With film, the negative is the
surface. Done. Photograph.
You see the definition says "producing images ON a sensitized surface"
not "producing images THROUGH a sensitized surface".
I say if it is not a film negative, it's not photography.
Yeah, I am nit picking. But to say they are both photography without
qualifications diminishes both.
Stacey
> At what point does graphic manipulation convert a photograph
> into graphic creation?
When you've created something that didn't exist in front of the camera when
the shutter was pulled.
At least that's the rule I use for my images. An example, if I had added an
insect to this image, it wouldn't be a photograph to me.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/redflower.jpg
If I had added the fly to the above shot, even though it would look just
like the photograph below taken a few minutes later, I still wouldn't have
considered the below a photograph.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/fly.jpg
SInce both of these are images of something that existed at a point in time
in front of the camera, they are photographs.
In this shot, I cloned out a telephone pole and the phone lines so it's no
longer a photograph. You can't go there, photograph this and ever make it
look like this shot without digitally manipulating it. Nothing wrong with
doing this as it drastically improved the image, but at least to me this is
where the line in drawn between a photograph and a digital image..
http://stephe_2.tripod.com/church.htm
One other picky example. The below shot had some pieces of trash in the
foreground that I picked it up before I took the shot. I consider this a
photograph because again this scene did exist in front of the camera when
the shutter was pulled. If I had digitally removed the trash,(Even if I had
actually picked up the trash AFTER the shot was taken) I wouldn't consider
it a photograph because it didn't exist in front of the camera at the point
in time when the shutter was pulled.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/truckcweb.jpg
I'm sure other people have their own "line" or maybe no line at all? This is
just where mine is. Thanx for posting the question!
--
Stacey
kz8rt3
"Mike Warren" <miwa-not...@or-this-cairnscarsound.com.au> wrote:
> I'm talking about created art as opposed
> to recording a scene because the scene itself is the art.
That's impossible to separate. The moment you create or the moment you
record anything it is art.
I have seen things that people recorded because they thought it was art.
But that was their interpretation of what was the art.
Tell me how you would record any "artistic" scene and without putting
any thought or judgment into it and I'll be satisfied.
Stacey
> In each of these decisions he is choosing to interpret the
> scene. What if he decides to move a glass of wine 3 inches to the left
> for
> better composition before taking the photo? Did he just make a graphic
> creation?
No because it existed that way in front of the camera when the shutter was
pulled, it's a photograph.
> What if he does it after? Does timing change the fact that the
> process began with a camera?
Yes. If you change it from something that existed in front of the camera to
something that never existed in that form at the point in time the shutter
was pulled, it's a graphic creation.
> What about cropping 20 photos and pasting
> them
> together to create a collage? Is that a graphic creation or photography
> or both?
>
Photography, unless you start adding/moving or creating elements.
Just my take on this and it doesn't mean a "graphic creation" is less worthy
that a photograph. I do both and no one knows but me. I do have to say I'm
more proud of my good photographs than my good graphic creations.
--
Stacey
Stacey
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:43:19 +1000, "Mike Warren"
> <miwa-not...@or-this-cairnscarsound.com.au> wrote:
>
>>At what point does graphic manipulation convert a photograph
>>into graphic creation?
>>
>>We start by perhaps burning in the sky and changing the white
>>balance.
>>
>>Intermediate stages would be things like adding a colour cast
>>or removing faint telephone lines.
>>
>>What about removing a background digitally to achieve the same
>>result that could have been done by placing a piece of black card
>>behind a macro shot?
>>
>>Adding a better sky is now easy and seems to be fairly common.
>>
>>I'm curious about what people think about this.
>>
>>-Mike
>>PS. I'm talking about art photography not photojournalism.
>
> First let's define what you call a "Photograph". Are Moholy-Nagy's
> Photograms, Photographs?
>
> Is directly minipulated Polaroid film, a photograph?
>
>
Yes, unless someone takes parts of one Polaroid and places it on top of
another, then it's a collage.
--
Stacey
Mike Warren
>> At what point does graphic manipulation convert a photograph
>> into graphic creation?
>
> When you've created something that didn't exist in front of the
> camera when the shutter was pulled.
Nice pictures.
> In this shot, I cloned out a telephone pole and the phone lines so
> it's no longer a photograph. You can't go there, photograph this and
> ever make it look like this shot without digitally manipulating it.
> Nothing wrong with doing this as it drastically improved the image,
> but at least to me this is where the line in drawn between a
> photograph and a digital image..
>
> http://stephe_2.tripod.com/church.htm
Since you were already cloning out objects in this picture, what
made you decide to leave the wires on the right hand side in?
I like the picture but I would have gone that extra step since - to me -
the wires are a distraction (admittedly small).
-Mike
Mr. Mark
.
> >
> > Not at all. I'm pro war. Just don't think we need to make up excuses
to
> > invade evil countries. That they are evil should be reason enough.
>
> But you think someone (presumably the Bush administration) was "trying to
> trick millions of Americans into believing there are WMD in a small
country
> in the Middle East"?
No, not at all. Jesus, lighten up, get a life.
kz8rt3
"Brian" <br...@showprints.com> wrote:
> In the Art world, many feel that an image that starts out as a
> photograph is generally accepted as a photograph, regardless of how it
> ends up. Ex: convert the photo to a watercolor in photoshow, and print
> it on watercolor art texture paper, and it is still a photograph. This
> keeps thing very simple. Brian
The PSA does not accept that as a photograph. You must be from Alabama.
Mr. Mark
> Ansel was a smart guy. He had a way with words.
Sometimes. Sometimes he was a little long winded. And I don't always like
his photography (often, but not always), but I like what he did for the art
and for the industry a lot. :)
Mr. Mark
news:kz8rt3-E5D6B5.23134517082005@news2-
> > I'm talking about created art as opposed
> > to recording a scene because the scene itself is the art.
>
> That's impossible to separate. The moment you create or the moment you
> record anything it is art.
You haven't seen my photos yet have you. <g>
> Tell me how you would record any "artistic" scene and without putting
> any thought or judgment into it and I'll be satisfied.
I wanted to make that point, but couldn't find the words. :)
kz8rt3
Paul Schilter <paulsc...@nospamcomcast.net> wrote:
> Ansel was a smart guy. He had a way with words.
Yeah, he was. But I can't figure out why everyone wants to be like him.
Mike Warren
Everyone?
-Mike
Mr. Mark
> >
>
> How can you ask what it is if you don't know?
If he knew he wouldn't have to ask the question. ;)
Mr. Mark
>
> That's about like being pro cancer.
Yeah, about the same. I figure the same type of companies make money off
war as do cancer. ;)
> Can we assume you're posting from Iraq?
> If not, why not?
No. Did my time.
Mr. Mark
> had to do something like hire a cherry picker.
Ansel Adams actually suggests taking a ladder with you in one of his books,
I think it was The Camera. Indispensable he said. :)
Mr. Mark
worthy
> that a photograph. I do both and no one knows but me. I do have to say I'm
> more proud of my good photographs than my good graphic creations.
I agree with your first statement, but IMO no matter how you classify the
art, it's still art and it's either good or bad. :)
Mr. Mark
> film) by the action of radiant energy and especially light."
>
> So I thought, is the surface of film the same as the surface of the CMOS?
>
> There is no real "surface" in a digital camera. If the CMOS is the
> surface then why isn't the image there? So maybe you can say the surface
> is the Flash Card. But that surface is reformatted and reused and can
> you point to it? There is no surface until it is printed, and that is
> mostly done by ink, not by light. With film, the negative is the
> surface. Done. Photograph.
I disagree. The CMOS is as much a sensitized surface as the negative. And
the negative isn't the final print anymore than the digital file is. The
image is only the image information stored in grains of silver instead of
bytes. You are producing images from the CMOS surface that is being exposed
to radiant energy. The definition says nothing about how the image
information is stored.
I understand that you and I are just playing the semantic game.
> You see the definition says "producing images ON a sensitized surface"
> not "producing images THROUGH a sensitized surface".
The image /does/ exist ON the sensor before it's transferred to the image
processor and then on to the "permanent" memory. The image is moved from
the sensor just as a 35mm camera advances the next unexposed section of
film.
> I say if it is not a film negative, it's not photography.
I disagree. :)
> Yeah, I am nit picking. But to say they are both photography without
> qualifications diminishes both.
I don't see how. Only in so far as it is interesting to know the process by
which an image was created is it worth even commenting on. The art of
photography is extremely diverse and isn't limited to a single process - in
my opinion.
Mike Warren
> Actually, in the early days of B&W phototgraphy, skies were changed
> completely in the darkroom, not just altered by using filters at the
> camera. The plates of those days were extremely sensitive to blue
> light and extremely insensitive to red light. This resulted in
> photos that had totally washed out skies because the general overall
> exposure that produced a workable negative of the landscape was far
> greater than what was needed to get a properly exposed sky. Most
> landscape photographers had an inventory of properly exposed glass
> plates of skies and clouds that they used by masking and dodging &
> burning during double exposures when printing to get good detail in
> both the land & the sky. I guess for a specific scene they could
> also expose one plate for the sky and one for the land and then do a
> double expsure in the darkroom printing.
...and then they could use Photoshops HDR to merge the plates. :-)
-Mike
redbelly
Mr. Mark wrote:
> The world is color, yet many of us
> shoot in B&W.
Change of topic here, but this remark reminded me of a pet peeve of
mine in digital imaging lingo. I wish optical scanners and programs
like Photoshop wouldn't use the term "black and white" for black and
white images!
I don't know how many times I've either scanned a document, or
converted a photo, to black-and-white only to realize afterwards that I
really wanted to choose GREYSCALE. Growing up during the conventional
film era, black-and-white always allowed for shades of gray as well.
But now it means something else, and I often have to make an extra scan
of a document in order to get what I really wanted.
(Rant mode OFF) :-)
Mark
David J Taylor
Yes, I've seen the same problem with "monochrome" having but two levels of
brightness - black and white! (I blame the dumbing down.....).
David
kz8rt3
"Mike Warren" <miwa-not...@or-this-cairnscarsound.com.au> wrote:
OK, OK, most. :^P
kz8rt3
"Mr. Mark" <e.ca...@southpark.com> wrote:
> "kz8rt3" <kz8...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:kz8rt3-E5D6B5.23134517082005@news2-
>
> > > I'm talking about created art as opposed
> > > to recording a scene because the scene itself is the art.
> >
> > That's impossible to separate. The moment you create or the moment you
> > record anything it is art.
>
> You haven't seen my photos yet have you. <g>
Art is not always good. It is just a reflection of the owners own views.
>
> > Tell me how you would record any "artistic" scene and without putting
> > any thought or judgment into it and I'll be satisfied.
>
> I wanted to make that point, but couldn't find the words. :)
One man: Jiddu Krishnamurti.
kz8rt3
"Mike Warren" <miwa-not...@or-this-cairnscarsound.com.au> wrote:
How about just not taking the picture? I am sure you saw the scene as
beautiful but those damn power lines were in the way. So guess what? The
scene was not really beautiful.
I don't know. I guess it is just me. When I shoot digital I don't look
at an image thinking how I could change it in photoshop later. So the
fact you were thinking digitally makes it digital art.
Peace.
kz8rt3
"Mr. Mark" <e.ca...@southpark.com> wrote:
> > I *could* have taken the picture exactly how I wanted but would have
> > had to do something like hire a cherry picker.
>
> Ansel Adams actually suggests taking a ladder with you in one of his books,
> I think it was The Camera. Indispensable he said. :)
That's great.
We have things too easy know and it is ruining the planet as well as our
spirit.
kz8rt3
"Mr. Mark" <e.ca...@southpark.com> wrote:
> > "the art or process of producing images on a sensitized surface (as a
> > film) by the action of radiant energy and especially light."
> >
> > So I thought, is the surface of film the same as the surface of the CMOS?
> >
> > There is no real "surface" in a digital camera. If the CMOS is the
> > surface then why isn't the image there? So maybe you can say the surface
> > is the Flash Card. But that surface is reformatted and reused and can
> > you point to it? There is no surface until it is printed, and that is
> > mostly done by ink, not by light. With film, the negative is the
> > surface. Done. Photograph.
>
> I disagree. The CMOS is as much a sensitized surface as the negative.
Yeah, maybe. But there is no physical surface that the image is on until
it's printed. You can't take the cmos out and look at the image that
lasts without power like a negative. And neither with the flash. and you
could say it is actually the ACD since that is what really interprates
the light gathered in the cmos. I guess photography would be
consistently analog.
I guess I just feel it is not photography and needs the digital.
And no games, just semantics. :^)
Peace.
will e
1.Open a "photograph" in Photoshop.
2. Go to Filters/Artistic/Palette Knife.
3. Increase stroke size by moving the slider to the right. I find that my
photos become graphic creations at around 9, or 10 for a brush size. This
will vary with different originals and their starting parameters.
You can do this for other artistic filters as well. Brush size seems to have
the greatest impact. Hope this helps. Will E.
If I take a photograph of an oil painting, is it a photograph? What about
the converse?
"Mike Warren" <miwa-not...@or-this-cairnscarsound.com.au> wrote in
message news:430322dd$0$83586$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
Mr. Mark
> > > film) by the action of radiant energy and especially light."
> > I disagree. The CMOS is as much a sensitized surface as the negative.
>
> Yeah, maybe. But there is no physical surface that the image is on until
> it's printed.
First, the definition doesn't say anything about storage of the image until
printing and it doesn't even mention printing as part of the process. :)
Technically there is a physical surface where the image is stored if you're
using a camera with physical storage such as a floppy, CD or CF mini drive.
Just because the data is encoded doesn't make it any less an image. You
could pry the disk apart and look at the image. ;)
> You can't take the cmos out and look at the image that
> lasts without power like a negative. And neither with the flash. and you
> could say it is actually the ACD since that is what really interprates
> the light gathered in the cmos. I guess photography would be
> consistently analog.
> I guess I just feel it is not photography and needs the digital.
To me it's like there's film, digital, weird Polaroid processes (transfers,
etc), plate, and more.. then there are all the different ways of printing
(light sensitive paper, hand applied emulsions, transfers, ink, etc..).
The field of photography encompasses all of these. It is useful and
interesting to differentiate the processes used for a specific image - but
generally I don't think the process used will negate the photoness of a
photo. <g>
If you say "digital photo" then you should also say "35mm film photo" or
"large format plate photo". Which I guess is done fairly commonly. But
when I ask my friend to show me his vacation pics I don't say "show me your
digital photographs please". I say "please post some of your photos" ;)
> And no games, just semantics. :^)
Agreed :)
> Peace.
Love & Contraceptives :)
Cheers mate,
Mr. Mark
>
> One man: Jiddu Krishnamurti.
Are you Buddhist?
Nostrobino
"Mr. Mark" <e.ca...@southpark.com> wrote in message
news:XkTMe.20398$Yx1....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> >> Talk about dragging your political agenda in by the left hind foot . .
> .
>> >
>> > Not at all. I'm pro war. Just don't think we need to make up excuses
> to
>> > invade evil countries. That they are evil should be reason enough.
>>
>> But you think someone (presumably the Bush administration) was "trying to
>> trick millions of Americans into believing there are WMD in a small
> country
>> in the Middle East"?
>
> No, not at all. Jesus, lighten up, get a life.
I'm already lightened up; any lighter and I'd float off on the summer breeze
(well, at 200 pounds that's just hyperbole of course). But if you're really
*not* saying that, then it's mighty hard to understand what your "trying to
trick millions of Americans into believing there are WMD in a small country
in the Middle East" meant, and now your "Just don't think we need to make up
excuses to invade evil countries" hardly suggests any other meaning. You
seem to be making an accusation and denying it in the same post.
But never mind; as long as you support the war (even if somewhat
incoherently) that's what counts.
N.
kz8rt3
"Mr. Mark" <e.ca...@southpark.com> wrote:
> > > I wanted to make that point, but couldn't find the words. :)
> >
> > One man: Jiddu Krishnamurti.
>
> Are you Buddhist?
That would be another trap, another image I had to live up to. I did
study the words of Buddha. But when you finish, you find out they are
just words and so you let them all go.
:^)
Krishnamurti was not buddhist. No guru. He just told people to think for
themselves. Very useful for an artist.
Mr. Mark
>
> I'm already lightened up; any lighter and I'd float off on the summer
breeze
> (well, at 200 pounds that's just hyperbole of course).
You and I need to excercise more. :)
> But if you're really
> *not* saying that, then it's mighty hard to understand what your "trying
to
> trick millions of Americans into believing there are WMD in a small
country
> in the Middle East" meant, and now your "Just don't think we need to make
up
> excuses to invade evil countries" hardly suggests any other meaning. You
> seem to be making an accusation and denying it in the same post.
The "trick millions" comment was a joke. I can support the war and still be
amazed at the silliness with which it's being waged. ;)
> But never mind; as long as you support the war (even if somewhat
> incoherently) that's what counts.
I just want to win and I'm annoyed at how people keep blowing themselves up
for their religion. :/
I actually have a reputation for being conservative/rightwing to a fault in
the other couple news groups I frequent, but I don't like to bring that
stuff up in here as it dilutes the usefulness of the group. However, I saw
a chance to make myself laugh and couldn't resist :)
Mike Warren
> However, I saw a chance to make myself laugh and couldn't
> resist :)
You *evil* person. :-)
-Mike
Mr. Mark
I am Evil. I'm not saying that evil is one of my attributes, but rather
that I am in fact THE Evil. <g> oh, I guess that should be <eg> heh heh.
Mr. Mark
> themselves. Very useful for an artist.
Ah, so he /was/ the second Buddha after all. ;)
> > Are you Buddhist?
>
> That would be another trap, another image I had to live up to. I did
> study the words of Buddha. But when you finish, you find out they are
> just words and so you let them all go.
>
> :^)
That made me smile. :)
Mike Warren
> In article <4303f7c1$0$66795$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
>> I *could* have taken the picture exactly how I wanted but would have
>> had to do something like hire a cherry picker.
> How about just not taking the picture? I am sure you saw the scene as
> beautiful but those damn power lines were in the way. So guess what?
> The scene was not really beautiful.
That's just the point. I didn't see the power lines. Not until I looked
at the scene critically. Doesn't everyone ignore undesired objects
in their mind at first glance? Maybe I'm just weird.
> When I shoot digital I don't look at an image thinking how I could
> change it in photoshop later.
Neither do I. What happens is first I see something that looks
interesting. Next, I look more critically with regards to the best
position for framing etc.Here's where I start to see the problems
with the scene. So from now until I trigger the shutter (or not) I
have to find the best compromise.
Now that I'm shooting digital I can also imagine slight post shooting
modifications to solve some of these "problems".
I used to do the same thing back when I was shooting B&W and
had my own darkroom. The effort required then however, limited
to a large extent what I would do. Mostly all I would do is burn or
dodge to fade the undesirable items into the background.
I guess my main problem with all this is: I don't want to be dishonest
with my pictures but at the same time don't like the idea of having to
explain anything to the viewer.
If the modification shows somebody with a foot growing out of their
head or the moon has pink and yellow stripes then the viewer is not
lied to because it is immediately obvious that the picture has been
modified.
-Mike
Nostrobino
[ . . . ]
>
> The "trick millions" comment was a joke. I can support the war and still
> be
> amazed at the silliness with which it's being waged. ;)
Okay. I don't know if it's being waged in a silly manner or not. I'm unhappy
that we're not getting better results after all this time, but I'm not a
military expert (sometimes I think I must be the only one who's not, as
almost everyone else seems to have a definite opinion on what we should be
doing instead of what we're doing) and am not sure exactly how we could have
done better.
>
>> But never mind; as long as you support the war (even if somewhat
>> incoherently) that's what counts.
>
> I just want to win and I'm annoyed at how people keep blowing themselves
> up
> for their religion. :/
I agree, mostly. I don't really mind them blowing themselves up for their
religion, but I sure would like to see some method for making them blow up
at home, among their own families and friends, helpers and
suppliers--instead of among innocent people and, of course, our guys.
>
> I actually have a reputation for being conservative/rightwing to a fault
> in
> the other couple news groups I frequent, but I don't like to bring that
> stuff up in here as it dilutes the usefulness of the group. However, I
> saw
> a chance to make myself laugh and couldn't resist :)
Okay. I'm a card-carrying member of Hillary's Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
myself. (The only dissatisfaction I have with this particular Conspiracy is
that we're all too open about it, and conspirators should by definition be
operating in an underhanded and sneaky way, meetings in dark alleys,
sidewise glances, lowered voices in smoke-filled rooms and that sort of
thing. We ought to have at least one real secret, too. A recipe for bran
muffins or something.)
N.
no.canned.pork
>
> Is directly minipulated Polaroid film, a photograph?
>
Just love that perfect neologism.
Probably a minipulated image from a camera would still be a photograph. OTOH
a maxipulated image would probably qualify as a picture, if not a work of
art.
--
T Ritchie (Sr)
Save a rainforest: Eat Brazil nuts - www.mongabay.com/1003.htm
Paul H.
> At what point does graphic manipulation convert a photograph
> into graphic creation?
>
> balance.
>
> Intermediate stages would be things like adding a colour cast
> or removing faint telephone lines.
>
> What about removing a background digitally to achieve the same
> result that could have been done by placing a piece of black card
> behind a macro shot?
>
> Adding a better sky is now easy and seems to be fairly common.
>
> I'm curious about what people think about this.
>
> -Mike
> PS. I'm talking about art photography not photojournalism.
When someone creates a generally-accepted definition for "photograph", the
answer will be obvious; until then, the question is completely non-sensical.
When is an animal not a dog? When the animal fails to meet all the criteria
set forth in the definition of "dog."
Of course, I can imagine the ads for a camera which takes "real"
photographs: "Yessiree, each and every pixel in our cameras' pictures is
derived from gen-u-ine photons emanating from the scene being captured! We
don't add no foreign pixels to confound and cheat the viewer!"
Hmmm....
Stacey
>> Just my take on this and it doesn't mean a "graphic creation" is less
> worthy
>> that a photograph. I do both and no one knows but me. I do have to say
>> I'm more proud of my good photographs than my good graphic creations.
>
> I agree with your first statement, but IMO no matter how you classify the
> art, it's still art and it's either good or bad. :)
>
Sure, especially to the viewer as they don't know how it was created. I
guess it's more of a personal game and like I said I'm more proud of the
shots I nailed in the camera than ones created in photoshop.
--
Stacey
Stacey
> Stacey wrote:
>>
>> http://stephe_2.tripod.com/church.htm
>
> Since you were already cloning out objects in this picture, what
> made you decide to leave the wires on the right hand side in?
>
Guess I figured the church needs to have some sort of power lines going to
it given it's a modern church? Maybe I was just tired of working in
PS? :-)
--
Stacey
Mr. Mark
the
> > art, it's still art and it's either good or bad. :)
>
> Sure, especially to the viewer as they don't know how it was created. I
I like how Gorden Moat describes the process for most of his works. Of
course they involve more than "20D, Printed on Deskjet 970" :) I'm also a
big fan of his work.
> ...like I said I'm more proud of the
> shots I nailed in the camera than ones created in photoshop.
I'm the same way actually. :)