One thing that I have been struggling with in my adventures with photography is how much editing is too much editing. At what point does a photograph become digital art?
Today I was perusing Digital-photography-school.com and I came upon this link that really puts things into perspective. for me at least. I thought I'd share it with everyone.
I'm a little old school in some ways, and probably too young for that, but I left Art School years ago because it was going to CAD vs. creativity.
Digital photography is embraced by many because of it's simplicity (look how many own the small point and shoots out there, which I think is great).
But, my opinion (and I have way too many, unfortunately, it is only digital art when the photog spends more time on the computer processing the image versus composing it initially...if that makes sense.
I enjoyed this article, Adrian. Thanks for posting the link! (What happened to SOOC and spring cleaning?!!?)
I wonder what difference the label really makes? Most people who take pictures are not professionals and if the final product makes them happy, triggers memories, etc., who truly cares what it is called?
My opinion:
Anytime that you take a picture, you are creating art.
It is your view, your concept, your "capture" of the moment, and your story to tell.
If your image, out of the camera, says all that you want it to........perfect!
If you feel like playing with it, feel free! It is your voice, your perception, and again....
Your story to tell
As a 'beginner' in the photographic field (and by 'beginner' I mean having already completed one Project 365 and am well into Year Two), I've opted to keep editing to an absolute minimum. Cropping, contrast, brightness ... that's it. I'm a big believer in learning more from mistakes than successes. At some point - probably at the conclusion of Year Two at the latest - I'll start to get into all the hoopla of 'tweakery'.
The Bottom Line is: It is what you make of it. I have associates and friends who I envy in what they put out there .... but it's not photography as I see it. It's their version of it. And that's all right. Not to take anything away from what they are creating, it just doesn't turn my crank.
If it makes the creator happy, that's what it's all about.
I agree with Ruprecht, (manipulation) of a photo makes it much less real. It is no longer the way it was originally seen. Basically like a lie to the viewer of the photo. I know that is a very interesting way of doing things, but a true capture of something, is just that. If you have to do something to make it (better), was it worth taking in the first place. The only thing I will do is crop to eliminate clutter,
not adding something to it. But to each to his/her own. Keep on snapping, and
manulipating if you want.
Richard. I agree that Extreme manipulation of a photo is not a true representation of the scene that the photographer saw. however, How would "hardware Manipulation" be any different than "Software manipulation" For example, a comment made in response to the article mentions that in film photography or in the days before photoshop, professional photographers would use pantyhose to create a feather vignette or smear grease on the filter to soften up the photo, he also goes on to mention Dark room dodge and burn. All of those effects change the scene or the image both before and after the photo was taken respectively, however no complains about that not being a real photo.
If I were to take a photo In raw format, import it into Lightroom, adjust the exposure, clone out spots, increase the clarity / contrast /brightness, color correct, WB correct , fine tune adjust over exposed parts of the sky to increase dynamic range and soften skin. Does that mean that I not longer have a photograph, but a digital image? Or Digital Art? Or does it have to be taken a step further and have whole parts moved/ removed/ replaced or drastically changed to move into the realm of digital art and out of the realm of photography?
Either way it's an art form, so does it really matter?
After reading the article and the opinions of others, I started to think of the painter Chuck Close. His work is photo realistic and very intense to see (If you haven't seen a Chuck Close up close, then you're totally missing out.). Where is the line between photo and painting drawn? Where in photography is reality drawn?
I believe in Post-modernist art. Artist Brad Holland once said, “In Modernism, reality used to validate media. In Postmodernism, the media validate[s] reality.” I believe that. If one's reality is a split tone of pink and green, then that is their reality. If someone's reality is violence and rape, then one might need the use of models to show this reality.
In another point, the painter Baldassare Castiglione describes his work as sprezzatura. That is an Italian word meaning to put hours of work forth to make it look like one did nothing. So By me putting a ton of work forward to just make it look like nothing could be defined as "non-fiction" or not reality. Why should I want my subject to not look it's best? Just because I'm capturing a specific moment in time doesn't mean that the emotion behind it really changes when I edit it.
All in all, reality is in the eye of the photographer.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I'm a little old school in some ways, and probably too young for that, but I left Art School years ago because it was going to CAD vs. creativity.
Digital photography is embraced by many because of it's simplicity (look how many own the small point and shoots out there, which I think is great).
But, my opinion (and I have way too many, unfortunately, it is only digital art when the photog spends more time on the computer processing the image versus composing it initially...if that makes sense.
I wonder what difference the label really makes? Most people who take pictures are not professionals and if the final product makes them happy, triggers memories, etc., who truly cares what it is called?
Anytime that you take a picture, you are creating art.
It is your view, your concept, your "capture" of the moment, and your story to tell.
If your image, out of the camera, says all that you want it to........perfect!
If you feel like playing with it, feel free! It is your voice, your perception, and again....
Your story to tell
As a 'beginner' in the photographic field (and by 'beginner' I mean having already completed one Project 365 and am well into Year Two), I've opted to keep editing to an absolute minimum. Cropping, contrast, brightness ... that's it. I'm a big believer in learning more from mistakes than successes. At some point - probably at the conclusion of Year Two at the latest - I'll start to get into all the hoopla of 'tweakery'.
The Bottom Line is: It is what you make of it. I have associates and friends who I envy in what they put out there .... but it's not photography as I see it. It's their version of it. And that's all right. Not to take anything away from what they are creating, it just doesn't turn my crank.
If it makes the creator happy, that's what it's all about.
** clap, clap **
not adding something to it. But to each to his/her own. Keep on snapping, and
manulipating if you want.
If I were to take a photo In raw format, import it into Lightroom, adjust the exposure, clone out spots, increase the clarity / contrast /brightness, color correct, WB correct , fine tune adjust over exposed parts of the sky to increase dynamic range and soften skin. Does that mean that I not longer have a photograph, but a digital image? Or Digital Art? Or does it have to be taken a step further and have whole parts moved/ removed/ replaced or drastically changed to move into the realm of digital art and out of the realm of photography?
Either way it's an art form, so does it really matter?
I believe in Post-modernist art. Artist Brad Holland once said, “In Modernism, reality used to validate media. In Postmodernism, the media validate[s] reality.” I believe that. If one's reality is a split tone of pink and green, then that is their reality. If someone's reality is violence and rape, then one might need the use of models to show this reality.
In another point, the painter Baldassare Castiglione describes his work as sprezzatura. That is an Italian word meaning to put hours of work forth to make it look like one did nothing. So By me putting a ton of work forward to just make it look like nothing could be defined as "non-fiction" or not reality. Why should I want my subject to not look it's best? Just because I'm capturing a specific moment in time doesn't mean that the emotion behind it really changes when I edit it.
All in all, reality is in the eye of the photographer.