Photo Competitions & Computer Manipulated Photos
)
How do you think photo competitions (including camera club competitions) should handle computer generated or manipulated slides?
Should it be a separate category or just put in with the conventional photos?
If you think it should be a separate category, then what constitutes manipulation? Removing an object? Adding something to the photo? Duping a
photo to change the contrast or color?
Only a small pecentage of photographers are currently using computers to
manipulate slides, which means only a small percentage of judges know much about it.
From what I've seen, conventional photos can't compete with good computer
manipulation. If it's done well, you can't tell the difference.
Dave
twater
fing...@hannah.enet.dec.com (David Fingerhut.)) writes:
> Only a small pecentage of photographers are currently using computers to
> manipulate slides, which means only a small percentage of judges know much about it.
>
What judges do and don't know has little to do with what percentage of
photographers are doing it. Judges, like anyone else have a background
of info from their experience. They come from varying professions...
working photographers, art critics and historians, university faculty,
museum curatorial staff, etc. Therefor, what they know about computer
manipulated images is based upon many things.
> From what I've seen, conventional photos can't compete with good computer
> manipulation. If it's done well, you can't tell the difference.
Well I totally disagree with the above statement, but what is faulty
IMHO, is the need to compare the two and decide which is best. Water
Color and oils are both painting and often judged together, but have
very different qualities. So it is true with computer manipulated
photographic images. I think they can be juried together, but I see
them as two distict uses of the medium; distict like B/W is distinct
from color.
I do wonder why David, you refer in the above line to "computers to
manipulate slides..." A slide is generally not an exhibitable
end-product except in a camera club contest. Photographers and artists
are and for that matter have been using the computer to manipulate and
alter images, make negatives, and use computer printout for quite some
time. It may be quite true that few camera club members are
manipulating slides at this time. And true therefore that judges in a
camera club know little about them, but in a bigger Photography/Art
arena, I don't think this is the case.
For the camera club member, the software for manipulation such as Adobe
Photoshop is available, but not cheap. However, the hardware... decent
scanners, slide printers, computers with 64MB RAM, lots of hard drive
for storage, color printers, etc, are probable still not very
reasonable
and while there are outlets where you can go and use these things, it
isn't cheap. Some of us have the equipment at work, but this is not
available to everyone.
I also disagree that manipulated images are better than conventional
ones. On the one hand, the computer allows you to "fix" problems and
improve color, density, composition, etc. But I don't know if this is
really good. The more manipulated an image, the farther away from the
"real scene" it becomes, and therefore, it becomes less intimate. I
think this is a disadvantage in all areas of photography except per
haps advertising shots, where there is little intimacy to begin with.
For me making a photo is about connecting with the world around me;
being a part of that whole, and having an interaction in it. If I
"make" the image in the computer, all I interacting with is the
computer, and this is very unapealing to me.
While I care about the quality of my image, the act of making them, the
physical doing of it is more important. If I make images on the
computer, IMHO, it is a little like masturbation. I can get a result,
but it lacks the interaction with others that makes life worth living.
And, I wonder, whats wrong with some flaws in an image?? Flaws due to
the limitations of the equipment, lighting, scene, etc??? I don't want
stepford pictures... I want real pictures!!!!!
Thomas C. Waters
twa...@pitt.edu
"The opinions expressed are my own, take what you like and leave the
rest."
"I always assume someone is gay unless they tell me otherwise.
Straights have been doing the same in reverse forever and I'm sick of
it!"
Victor Debattista
Plenty deleted
>While I care about the quality of my image, the act of making them, the
>physical doing of it is more important. If I make images on the
>computer, IMHO, it is a little like masturbation. I can get a result,
>but it lacks the interaction with others that makes life worth living.
More deleted
That's pretty strong. I disagree with you 100%. This is the old "photography
must reflect the real world" arguement, elevated to the status of an event! Am
I to understand that the artist has nothing significant to say independent of
an external reality? I doubt any surrealist would agree with you. Besides,
haven't photographers been manipulating prints from the very beginning, even
St. Adams himself! I'm not sure that there is much difference between making
images on computers and painting. Please explain yourself better.
In reply to the original poster, I think perhaps you need to recognize that
computer manipulation may qualify as a new medium, of course depending on the
extent (for example, its one thing to remove red-eye, a completely different
thing to put dancing cherubs flying about). I mean a new medium in the same
sense that color and b&w photography are different media, but both are still
photography. I haven't thought much about this issue though, so I'd like to
see more people responding to this post.
Victor
twater
deba...@galileo.rutgers.edu (Victor Debattista) writes:
> That's pretty strong. I disagree with you 100%. This is the old "photography
> must reflect the real world" arguement, elevated to the status of an event! Am
> I to understand that the artist has nothing significant to say independent of
> an external reality? I doubt any surrealist would agree with you. Besides,
> haven't photographers been manipulating prints from the very beginning, even
> St. Adams himself! I'm not sure that there is much difference between making
> images on computers and painting. Please explain yourself better.
Victor, perhaps reading my post more carefully would help, but I'll be
glad to explain myself more better.
BTW, I believe I commented (or meant to that photographers have been
manipulating images from the very beginning of photography. Duane
Michaels, Witkin, and who's that guy who does those amazingly beautiful
multiple prints??? I'll think of his name by the end of this post....
maybe. Manipulation in and of itself has NOTHING to do with it. And I
don't raise Adams to Sainthood... maybe you do. Everytime he (or
anyone) uses a red filter to deepen the sky they are manipulating the
image.
My comments are not the old "photography must reflect the real world"
argument. It is my opinion that that position is totally full of
manure!!!! There is no such thing as "real" nor is there such a thing
as an objective image. All pictures capture some subjective and
specific perspective, usually that of the image maker. Even when the
image maker works very hard to keep the image from being biased, it
still is in the sense that the photographer makes a choice to
photyograph from one perspective and exclude any other.
I am the last person in the world who can be accused of believing that
the photograph must reflect the real world.
WHAT I SAID WAS...that for me the act of making the image, being
involved in an interaction (relation) with my subject matter is very
important. I generally photograph people and talking to them, sharing
with them, making an image WITH them is impoprtant to me. The
experience of making the photograph is important to me. If I'm
photographing a landscape, I want to smell the air, and feel the breeze
and listen to the sounds... all that is a part of making the
photograph. I can experience all that while shooting Infared color
slide film and get red trees and a off-color sky... so there doesn't
have to be anything "real" in the finished image.
For me, making images is about having an experience with my subject;
being in relation(ship) to the subject. Sorry if that is too gestalt
for your intellect.
This has no impact upon surrealism, in fact, I have a feeling most
surrealists would say that the experience (what I am talking about) has
everything to do with how their imagry evolves.
Your comment about the photographer having something to say independant
of an external world is such a flawed argument!!! It may be true that
I have much to say... that may be true. But what would I have anything
to say anything about IF THERE WAS NO EXTERNAL WORLD??? Our existance
is totally define in "relation to" and therefor it is ludicrous to
pretend that what we do is independant of it.
BTW, I do paint, and making or manipulating an image on the computer is
very little like painting. In painting there is a tangible object
being created. With the computer, that is not really the case. A file
od code is produced, but it is difficult to see this as tangible. What
we look at, on a moniter, or printed out on a printer is merely a
representation of that file. What looks red-red on a moniter may print
out as a orange- red because there is little to no calibration between
various output devices. It is true that working on an image on the
computer is similar to painting (or pghotographic printing) in that I
work alone, but touching the keys of a keyboard isn't very much like
feeling a brush or paper or chemicals in your hands (Always protect the
skin when working with photographic chemicals, I do this by wearing
gloves).
Please note victor, that I spoke from my own experience... about my
opinion and what it is like for me. While you are totally entitled to
disagree with me, why not speak from your own experience rather than
slam my perspective. Possibly because you don't have any personal
experience???
Thomas C. Waters
nothing to the thread. Are you the net police... is it your job to
point out what is not acceptable??? I will happily consider your
comments, Kieth, but I wonder, had you read my first post and Victor's
follow-up?? I wonder if some of your comments may have been
different... maybe... maybe not.
BTW, the "phoytography as objective" discourse was not part of the
initial thread, but an interesting aside which Victor began by
mis-interpreting my comment. You, Kieth make some interesting points
about it and I will add my comments below accordingly.
In article <keith...@sma.sca.ncsu.edu>
ke...@sma.sca.ncsu.edu (Keith Jordan) writes:
> >My comments are not the old "photography must reflect the real world"
> >argument. It is my opinion that that position is totally full of
> >manure!!!! There is no such thing as "real" nor is there such a thing
> >as an objective image. All pictures capture some subjective and
> >specific perspective, usually that of the image maker. Even when the
> >image maker works very hard to keep the image from being biased, it
> >still is in the sense that the photographer makes a choice to
> >photyograph from one perspective and exclude any other.
>
> That implies it's pointless to try to keep bias out of a picture --
> similar to arguments I've heard about journalism. Writers have biases they
> can't 100% overcome, so they should completely give into them. That's
> madness.
>
I do not agree that my comments imply that at all!!! I DO MEAN TO
IMPLY THAT WE AS IMAGE MAKERS NEED TO HAVE A REALISTIC AWARENESS OF OUR
ABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS when it comes to objectivity. I do not agree
with the all or nothing thinking that you allude to here. IMHO it IS
madness to go to one extreme because the other extreme isn't
accomplishable. But Kieth, here is the first place I wonder if you had
read the earlier installaments... Victor accuses me of being in the
"photo must be pure and real" school of thought. I do not now, nor
have I ever been of that frame of mind. But the ability of objectivity
and the obligation of the image make is new ground, not what was being
discussed. It is however, an intersting and important thread...
> If the photographer's job, either based on market demands or on his own
> decision, requires an unbiased perspective, then it's worth striving for.
> He may fall short, but not as short as he'd fall if he let his biases hang
> out.
I agree with this 100%. I would add that when it ISN'T required due to
job or market demand, the image maker can and should feel free to be as
biased and as unrealistic as he wants to be.
>
> >For me, making images is about having an experience with my subject;
> >being in relation(ship) to the subject. Sorry if that is too gestalt
> >for your intellect.
>
> Are you new to the Internet? Your way of arguing is obnoxious and
> counterproductive.
That you see my way as obnoxious or counterproductive is your opinion.
IMHO, when Victor attributed a position to me that was totally not
true, he was being obnoxious too. And the Gestalt comment had more to
do with the reality and the psycology of thought. Some people don't
comprehend the world in this "experiential" way... that mode or
construct of understanding is foreign to them. I never said nor
implied that my comments were above his intellect, only different from.
My way of looking at it (and please check out my earier post5 in
addition to my comments in the post you replied to) reflect more of an
Eastern mode of thinking, while your comments as well as Victor's
reflect more of a Western approach. That you read-into my comment a
negative quality was your doing not mine.
BTW, I am not new to the net. I find it funny however that you slam my
way of commenting and then you resort to trying to discredit me by
implying an imaturity in this medium of communication. Are you new to
the net?? People comment in very many different ways here in this very
open very public arena.
>
> >various output devices. It is true that working on an image on the
> >computer is similar to painting (or pghotographic printing) in that I
> >work alone, but touching the keys of a keyboard isn't very much like
> >feeling a brush or paper or chemicals in your hands (Always protect the
> >skin when working with photographic chemicals, I do this by wearing
> >gloves).
>
> I'm not sure his point was that the act of painting and the act of
> computer design are logistically similar. More the notion of creating
> something artistically through the use of tools (paint or keyboard, brush or
> mouse) that otherwise comes straight from your mind.
Well, what he said was that he saw creating a negative with the
computer as being like painting. So I commented on how I do not see
them as alike. As for your comments about creating through the use of
tools. I see this as a incomplete argument. You contrast <through use
of tools> with <straight from the mind>. Well, there is absolutely NO
way to share anything created except through tools. Even a poem or
other language oriented creation must be expressed via the tool of
language. In fact we are totally incapable of understanding or
interpreting what happens in our mind without the tools like words.
Can you tell us some more about what you mean by straight from the
mind???
>
> >Please note victor, that I spoke from my own experience... about my
> >opinion and what it is like for me. While you are totally entitled to
> >disagree with me, why not speak from your own experience rather than
> >slam my perspective. Possibly because you don't have any personal
> >experience???
>
> Possibly because his experience contradicts yours?
Possibly, but more than likely not or he would have (or will in the
future speak in the first person or write about his opinion as opposed
to critiquing the validity of another'd experience.
>Honestly, I would
> have been inclined to agree with your basic argument were it not for the in-your-face attitude.
I could care less if you would agree with me or not. Nor do I reaally
care if you like my approach to expressing myself. I am not trying to
rally support or win converts. This is no political campaign. If your
dislike of my style (or more accurately, you interpretation of my
style) stands in the way of agreeing or dissagreeing, then that's your
problem not mine. I do fully respect that you have a right to not like
it, and you, like Victor, have every right to disagree with me.
>I don't want to agree or disagree with ideas because of how much I like the >people behind them, but it's a hard temptation to resist.
Yes it can be hard to resist in our Western patriarchal system. I find
it funny that you can decide if you like me or not from one post. I
have no idea if I like you or not, I know so little about you that I
wouldn't even begin to pass that kind of judgement. Succumbing to the
temtation to agree/disagree based upon how much we like someone is one
way to control how much we hear, and how open we are to confronting our
thoughts and ideas. If I only consider what my friends say as being
valid, then I really run the risk of being closed minded. Yes it is
hard to resist, but well worth it.
> >"I always assume someone is gay unless they tell me otherwise.
> >Straights have been doing the same in reverse forever and I'm sick of
> >it!
>Adding that last touch of bitterness to your post.
>Keith
>Raleigh, NC
This was not adding any last touch of bitterness... it is part of my
.sig file and appears on all my posts through this newsreader(specific
words dependant upon which computer I'm working on at which time of the
day). It had absolutely nothing to do with the specific post what so
ever.
--
Thomas C. Waters
"The views expressed here are mine, take what you like and leave the
rest."
"I always assume someone is queer unless they tell me otherwise.
Straight society has been doing this in reverse forever, and I'm tired
of it."
******************************************************************
* Send any direct replies to: twa...@pitt.edu
*
******************************************************************
Keith Jordan
>
>Victor, perhaps reading my post more carefully would help, but I'll be
>glad to explain myself more better.
Snideness hurts rather than helps your argument.
>My comments are not the old "photography must reflect the real world"
>argument. It is my opinion that that position is totally full of
>manure!!!! There is no such thing as "real" nor is there such a thing
>as an objective image. All pictures capture some subjective and
>specific perspective, usually that of the image maker. Even when the
>image maker works very hard to keep the image from being biased, it
>still is in the sense that the photographer makes a choice to
>photyograph from one perspective and exclude any other.
That implies it's pointless to try to keep bias out of a picture --
similar to arguments I've heard about journalism. Writers have biases they
can't 100% overcome, so they should completely give into them. That's
madness.
If the photographer's job, either based on market demands or on his own
decision, requires an unbiased perspective, then it's worth striving for.
He may fall short, but not as short as he'd fall if he let his biases hang
out.
>For me, making images is about having an experience with my subject;
>being in relation(ship) to the subject. Sorry if that is too gestalt
>for your intellect.
Are you new to the Internet? Your way of arguing is obnoxious and
counterproductive.
>various output devices. It is true that working on an image on the
>computer is similar to painting (or pghotographic printing) in that I
>work alone, but touching the keys of a keyboard isn't very much like
>feeling a brush or paper or chemicals in your hands (Always protect the
>skin when working with photographic chemicals, I do this by wearing
>gloves).
I'm not sure his point was that the act of painting and the act of
computer design are logistically similar. More the notion of creating
something artistically through the use of tools (paint or keyboard, brush or
mouse) that otherwise comes straight from your mind.
>Please note victor, that I spoke from my own experience... about my
>opinion and what it is like for me. While you are totally entitled to
>disagree with me, why not speak from your own experience rather than
>slam my perspective. Possibly because you don't have any personal
>experience???
Possibly because his experience contradicts yours? Honestly, I would
have been inclined to agree with your basic argument were it not for the in-
your-face attitude. I don't want to agree or disagree with ideas because of
how much I like the people behind them, but it's a hard temptation to resist.
>"I always assume someone is gay unless they tell me otherwise.
>Straights have been doing the same in reverse forever and I'm sick of
>it!"
Adding that last touch of bitterness to your post.
Keith
Raleigh, NC
Ben Weiner
> twa...@pop.pitt.edu (twater) writes:
>>My comments are not the old "photography must reflect the real world"
>>argument. It is my opinion that that position is totally full of
>>manure!!!! There is no such thing as "real" nor is there such a thing
>>as an objective image. All pictures capture some subjective and
>>specific perspective, usually that of the image maker. Even when the
>>image maker works very hard to keep the image from being biased, it
>>still is in the sense that the photographer makes a choice to
>>photyograph from one perspective and exclude any other.
> That implies it's pointless to try to keep bias out of a picture --
>similar to arguments I've heard about journalism. Writers have biases they
>can't 100% overcome, so they should completely give into them. That's
>madness. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
He didn't say that at all. You said that, or you inferred it. I don't
know why people always draw this "conclusion." I think every picture
is biased and we all have to be aware of that when we make pictures
or look at them. That doesn't mean we should all give in and just
make propaganda photos.
We've been over this subject before on rec.photo. Most people have
a really visceral reaction to the idea that every picture carries
some sort of bias with it. (How about "carries some sort of perspective
with it"? What's the good of a picture that hasn't got its own
perspective?)
Last time there were people hollering about how horrible it was that
Weegee distorted the truth, because when he photographed a murder
scene he liked to move the dead man's hat into the picture! I'm not
sure why the topic provokes this; I think it has something to do with
the seeming "reality" of photographs - as contrasted with say
painting. Nobody argues for painting as a literal depiction of
reality anymore (although I think it was widely viewed as such
_before_ the rise of photography.) Well, I'm not going to convince
anybody, so I don't think I'll argue about it any longer.
...
>>"I always assume someone is gay unless they tell me otherwise.
>>Straights have been doing the same in reverse forever and I'm sick of
>>it!"
> Adding that last touch of bitterness to your post.
What's your point? I think it's funny.
Ade Barkah
: If the photographer's job, either based on market demands or on
: striving for.
That's a *big* if, and really is the heart of the argument.
I think few photographers (besides journalistic ones) require
such an `unbiased perspective'. Most of us have other goals,
perhaps conveying a particular mood or beauty the photographer
feels, and those are very subjective.
Many of us _do_ `throw away' reality, and heavily subject
our photographs with bias. We manipulate lighting, color,
contrast, perspective, etc., to achieve whatever our
hearts desire.
It's not wrong if a photographer, a writer, or an artist
completely gives into his bias. Each picture represents a
subjective decision by the photographer on how to portray
an image.
Regards,
-Ade Barkah