Sky Replacement

[Anbaric]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

It was a group painting meant as a military group portrait so it was painted from life. I fail to see the essential difference to present-day group photographs, except the technique used. If it had not been regarded as a true depiction of a real scene Rembrandt would have failed his commission. By your restrictions on photography this cannot be classified as art. 

I don't think any of that is correct. This is a painting that took years to finish. It contains multiple symbolic elements that certainly didn't exist in reality, probably including the girl (who may have the face of Rembrandt's wife) and the chicken (which may amongst other things be a pun on the captain's name). The conception of the painting changed significantly over time (scans reveal Rembrandt's 'edit history'). Rembrandt appears to have inserted a partial self-portrait as one of the supporting characters. It's a profoundly different concept to a modern group photo. And of course it's art, just as an unmanipulated photograph can be art (see the David Hurn photo in the other thread) and a heavily manipulated photograph can be art (though in cases of sky replacement with no artistic intent beyond 'taking the photo to the next level', generally bad art).

[jaapv]

The painting was finished within three years, which is a kind of Guiness book time for a painting that size. `one of the reasons for the repaints and corrections was that he had a kind of mass-production facility and that most of the painting was done by his pupils, not by himself. And yes, he inserted elements that were not in the original scene - similar to a sky replacement in a photograph - which was my argument in the first place...

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[IkarusJohn]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

The painting was finished within three years, which is a kind of Guiness book time for a painting that size. `one of the reasons for the repaints and corrections was that he had a kind of mass-production facility and that most of the painting was done by his pupils, not by himself. And yes, he inserted elements that were not in the original scene - similar to a sky replacement in a photograph - which was my argument in the first place...

It's a straw man argument, though Jaap.

The Night Watch was a commissioned painting of that group.  Some were included later, and some were painted out (presumably as they didn't pay their share of the commission).  What the soldiers paid for was a painting of that group, painted by Rembrandt.  I doubt there was ever any assumption by anyone that it would portray reality (ie, all the subjects would actually be there at the same time, looking like they did in the final painting) or that Rembrandt would actually do all the painting himself.  It was well know that he ran a studio, but the finished product bore his approval.

How does any of that apply to photography?  Is the Night Watch art?  Undoubtedly so, by most standards.  So what?  That Rembrandt didn't actually paint everything himself or that the painting is manipulated?  Pffft ... This has nothing to do with the discussion.

All these distinctions are all very fascinating, but adding skies and the like from a library of images I didn't even take is not photography to me.  It's one thing to adjust an actual image that you took, removing spots and small details, power lines etc, perhaps.  But cutting and pasting from other images is something else.  Pasting skies from a digital library that you didn't even take is something else again.

Is it art?  Who knows - I guess if it has artistic value, perhaps.  But it ain't photography ...

[jaapv]

38 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

It's a straw man argument, though Jaap.

The Night Watch was a commissioned painting of that group.  Some were included later, and some were painted out (presumably as they didn't pay their share of the commission).  What the soldiers paid for was a painting of that group, painted by Rembrandt.  I doubt there was ever any assumption by anyone that it would portray reality (ie, all the subjects would actually be there at the same time, looking like they did in the final painting) or that Rembrandt would actually do all the painting himself.  It was well know that he ran a studio, but the finished product bore his approval.

How does any of that apply to photography?  Is the Night Watch art?  Undoubtedly so, by most standards.  So what?  That Rembrandt didn't actually paint everything himself or that the painting is manipulated?  Pffft ... This has nothing to do with the discussion.

All these distinctions are all very fascinating, but adding skies and the like from a library of images I didn't even take is not photography to me.  It's one thing to adjust an actual image that you took, removing spots and small details, power lines etc, perhaps.  But cutting and pasting from other images is something else.  Pasting skies from a digital library that you didn't even take is something else again.

Is it art?  Who knows - I guess if it has artistic value, perhaps.  But it ain't photography ...

Hmm - Patricia and I were recently added to the website  group photograph of the staff of the dental practice we joined 

 

3 minutes ago, jaapv said:

but adding skies and the like from a library of images I didn't even take is not photography to me

The sky replacement tool lets you build your own collection of replacement skies.

 

3 minutes ago, jaapv said:

That Rembrandt didn't actually paint everything himself or that the painting is manipulated?  Pffft

That is exactly the argument I am making for photography.

[pgk]

What % of pixels in an image have to be derived from a camera in order for it to be 'classed' as a photograph?

Is an image which looks 'photographic' actually a photograph?

Does the technology used to create an image have to rely on human intervention or intent to be a photograph?

What amount of post processing is acceptable in a photographic image?

The answers are obviously complex and depend on numerous factors. But a lot of so-called photographs are not simple, in-camera creations anymore (and fewer never have been even from film days). I think that the real problem is that photographers used to use photo-retouchers whose job did not involve photography so was substatially delineated. Today's retouchers are the photographers themselves and the delineation has been forgotten so there is no longer the distinction that existed in the past.

[willeica]

On 6/11/2022 at 2:32 PM, Anbaric said:

It's rare in the classical music world, but a few people have an astonishing talent for it. This is Gabriela Montero, who I've seen play in London. Instead of doing encores at the end of a concert, she asks the audience for a tune to improvise on.

Of course, in the rest of her concert Montero plays from the score, which still allows a wide range of interpretive possibilities without discarding notes, or flying in phrases from a different composition. And there's a clear distinction between playing the music in front of her and improvisation. She doesn't want the audience to be uncertain about what's by Schubert, and what's by Montero.

https://www.scmp.com/culture/music/article/2088177/how-jazz-borrowed-improvisation-classical-music-and-pianist-gabriela

'Her reputation is not based solely on her improvisational skills. Montero is an acclaimed recitalist and her Hong Kong concert debut will begin with Schubert’s Four Impromptus, Op. 90, followed by Schumann’s Carnaval Op. 9. “That’s the classical repertoire as played by any other classical pianist,” she says. “It’s what’s written. I never improvise within a classical piece, unless it’s a Mozart concerto and there is a cadenza, which in Mozart’s time was meant to be improvised. In the second half it’s all improvised.”'

There was classical music and French Opera around in New Orleans in the late 19th Century, but equally there were other influences, such as what Jelly Roll Morton described as 'the Spanish Tinge' from Cuba and elsewhere. Then there were local brass and marching bands , some of whom were playing in a 'European tradition'. However the most distinctive elements of jazz were the displaced (syncopated ) rhythm and the bent (blues) notes, which had African origins. So in this melting pot it all came through and musicians like Louis Armstrong used all of this as a platform for improvisation. This was not done in any studied or calculated way, but rather as a natural progression. All it took was a few expressive geniuses like Armstrong to take what they had learnt in a melting pot to create a new art form where improvisation was an integral part. There were other later developments, such as Charlie Parker using what he had learnt in Kansas City listening to the Basie band and applying a new musical thinking on top of the chords of show tunes like 'I Got Rhythm' to further develop this. While Armstrong and Parker would have heard classical musicians playing, what they brought to their music was entirely original and could only have come from their 'side of the tracks' as they brought in the non European musical elements. 

Duke Ellington often described this process much more eloquently than I can. I enjoy listening to classical music, but as a lifelong jazz fan I always feel frustrated with musicians who do not break free from the printed score at any point in a performance. I often have to ask myself about who am I really listening to, the musician or the composer? I'm sure the answer is both, but maybe I don't have the musical education to determine which is which.  Louis Armstrong said " You blows who you is" which was a nice way of saying that he expressed himself through his music. His introduction to West End Blues here was not written down, but 'composed' on the spot in a recording studio in Chicago in 1928

Yes, messing around with skies is a form of 'improvisation' and so are a lot of other software tricks. While Louis and others changed music for ever in the 1920s, we still have not got to grips with the 'digital turn' and its possibilities. What is and what is not art lies with the beholders.

William 

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 hours ago, pgk said:

What % of pixels in an image have to be derived from a camera in order for it to be 'classed' as a photograph?

Is an image which looks 'photographic' actually a photograph?

Does the technology used to create an image have to rely on human intervention or intent to be a photograph?

What amount of post processing is acceptable in a photographic image?

The answers are obviously complex and depend on numerous factors. But a lot of so-called photographs are not simple, in-camera creations anymore (and fewer never have been even from film days). I think that the real problem is that photographers used to use photo-retouchers whose job did not involve photography so was substatially delineated. Today's retouchers are the photographers themselves and the delineation has been forgotten so there is no longer the distinction that existed in the past.

AFAIK, many top photographers still use professional retouchers (darkroom or photoshop). Few top photographers have the skills of the top retouchers, but it is essential that photographers guide the retouchers.

Here is the story of one:

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/08/voya-mitrovic-part-i.html

Edited June 17, 2022 by SrMi

[pgk]

20 minutes ago, SrMi said:

AFAIK, many top photographers still use professional retouchers.....

More than likely but that's still not many. I suspect that ad agencies do too. Numerically a small, small % though.

I've worked with someone who was shooting for an ad agency. The concept was already well understood and required merging and editing. I was involved because I held a commercial scuba ticket and could therefore shoot alongside (silly regulations were involved). But as I said there are few shooting sufficiently big budget work to use manipulators/retouchers.

Edited June 17, 2022 by pgk

[SrMi]

5 minutes ago, pgk said:

More than likely but that's still not many. I suspect that ad agencies do too. Numerically a small, small % though.

Yes, not many. I assume that many who can financially afford it (which is  a small number of photographers) do use a professional retoucher.

[pgk]

5 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Yes, not many. I assume that many who can financially afford it (which is  a small number of photographers) do use a professional retoucher.

I would think that it will depend on exactly what sort of work it is that they do and whether they see their role as being 'cradle to grave' - taking to final output. My guess is that it is now retouchers working for ad agencies who do much of the adjustments required, from both commissioned and stock imagery.

[LocalHero1953]

To flog this dead horse a bit more........
There is an exhibition here (Arles) that has the theme of 'Cloud' in all its meanings, from cloud computing and storage to photography of clouds, and touching on sky replacement in history. One example is photos taken around the Dead Sea in 1864 by Louis Vignes and Charles Negre. This shows a print marked up for retouching. As mentioned in an earlier post, the rationale was that the plates at the time were not sensitive enough to depict clouds. The practice was criticised at the time.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Another example was the Dexter Press Company, that produced postcards of motels, restaurants and cultural centres across North America in the post WW2 period - all with variations of the same sky.

Both my photos were taken with a Q2, if justification was needed!

Edited July 25, 2022 by LocalHero1953

[pgk]

3 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

To flog this dead horse a bit more........

The examples you show were intended to decieve and show a scene in a better light😊.And thereby lies a problem; that of passing off an image as 'real' when it is not.

[jaapv]

8 hours ago, pgk said:

And thereby lies a problem; that of passing off an image as 'real' when it is not.

And here we are back to the point of the "is photography art?" discussion we had a short while ago. Is there any reason why a photography should be "real" ? 

[pgk]

Just now, jaapv said:

Is there any reason why a photography should be "real" ? 

Well, that depends on whether it is intended to portray reality, because if it is and it doesn't, then it is deceitful. The statement that a 'photograph cannot lie' is cleraly wrong, but the underlying suggestion is that photographs are about recording reality. Other visual art rarely tries to make such a claim. Replacing skies is hardly a bold artistic statement, it is usually just a way of improving a bland photograph. But it is nevertheless deceitful.

[jaapv]

Journalism needs to make such a claim, and wildlife in some competitions. And when a photograph is presented as a record. But for the rest? I don't know where the idea that photography is for recording reality comes from. I would say that it is for expressing the vision of the photographer, taking reality as a starting point. 

[LocalHero1953]

Paul Graham wrote this:

Quote

"Through photographs, the prism of time is illuminated and breaks to clarity. We see the components and how they fit together. They take us on unexpected paths, they bring us to other lives we could know if life were to turn another way; they foster empathy. They allow us to recognise that life is not a story that flows to a neat finale; it warps and branches, spirals and twists, appearing and disappearing from our awareness."

I paste it here, not to name him as an authority to support my point of view, but because the first sentence in particular makes sense to me. I wonder whether some expect photography to be only about 'white light', considering that to be 'the whole truth', whereas I see photography as being about splitting the elements of the subject one from another as with a prism; not necessarily looking at all the 'colours' but rather selecting 'colours' as part of ones personal perspective (and if there's no personal perspective, then why do we take photographs?).

[pgk]

46 minutes ago, jaapv said:

 And when a photograph is presented as a record.

99.99999.....% of photographs ARE simply records.

12 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Paul Graham wrote this:

I paste it here, not to name him as an authority to support my point of view, but because the first sentence in particular makes sense to me. I wonder whether some expect photography to be only about 'white light', considering that to be 'the whole truth', whereas I see photography as being about splitting the elements of the subject one from another as with a prism; not necessarily looking at all the 'colours' but rather selecting 'colours' as part of ones personal perspective (and if there's no personal perspective, then why do we take photographs?).

Photography can be a window into time, but not if it presents a false view. It all dpends on the intent of the photographer. Usually though, intent is not captured in the metadata and we have to deduce intent. To a certain extent this is still doable with old (say Victorian) photographs. The sheer volume and ease of adjustment of photographs produced today will probably mean that in the future images from this era will be viewed with a high degree of suspicion that they were either never intended to ell any sort of truth or that they were deliberately misleading, which all too often they are. A few presented as 'art' may survive in that guise but they are likely to be an extremely small minority. One's personal perspective probably won't be of relevance unless one becomes famous and ones imagages are then prized.

[SrMi]

The most common deceit in photography is when it’s claimed that it depicts reality.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

99.99999.....% of photographs ARE simply records.

Photography can be a window into time, but not if it presents a false view. It all dpends on the intent of the photographer. Usually though, intent is not captured in the metadata and we have to deduce intent. To a certain extent this is still doable with old (say Victorian) photographs. The sheer volume and ease of adjustment of photographs produced today will probably mean that in the future images from this era will be viewed with a high degree of suspicion that they were either never intended to ell any sort of truth or that they were deliberately misleading, which all too often they are. A few presented as 'art' may survive in that guise but they are likely to be an extremely small minority. One's personal perspective probably won't be of relevance unless one becomes famous and ones imagages are then prized.

My experience is different. We need not look further than this forum. I regularly see images that represent different layers of reality due to the artistic skill of the photographer. There is for instance an image of a locomotive in the favorite images right now which, by its composition and post processing evokes a feeling of threat besides being a record of reality. What about the nude of the pregnant woman? It may look like a straight photograph but it tells a whole story of innocence and woman the mother. Or the wonderful portrait of the market lady? It is is reminiscent of golden age Dutch painting. I could go on. Straight records of reality - hah! 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pgk]

8 hours ago, jaapv said:

My experience is different. We need not look further than this forum. I regularly see images that represent different layers of reality due to the artistic skill of the photographer. There is for instance an image of a locomotive in the favorite images right now which, by its composition and post processing evokes a feeling of threat besides being a record of reality. What about the nude of the pregnant woman? It may look like a straight photograph but it tells a whole story of innocence and woman the mother. Or the wonderful portrait of the market lady? It is is reminiscent of golden age Dutch painting. I could go on. Straight records of reality - hah! 

Neither the forum nor 'photographers' are representative of the vast majority of photographs taken.