Native vs processing with (LR etc)

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, pgk said:

The problem with the image I am talking about is that for it to have been an real photograph, the world would have had to be situated somewhere with two suns! Fine in a sci-fi movie but for an image iof an outside and most decidedly non-sci-fi setting it looked totally unnatural. If you are aiming at manipulating photographs to produce a photographic result then lighting should at least be representative of possible reality and not otherworldly. At least that's my take - my point being I suppose that manipulation requires rather more thought than often goes into it. The ability to manipulate does not in itsef guarantee that the end result will have any worthwhile attributes. If an image is entered into a competitive photographic situation it should at least look like a photograph rather than a bodge of different photographs IMO.

Again, see Jerry Uelsmann. If photo montages are within contest rules, so be it. If not, there’s your reason to exclude.  Otherwise, it’s all about quality of final product, and the judges’ decision.

Personally, I dislike most photo contests, and prefer that the buyers’ decisions, or even the creator’s own opinion, dictates success.

Jeff

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, Anbaric said:

Aren't those slightly different photos (e.g., the woman on the left has her eyes open in the first one), or is this some Topaz witchcraft?

Quite possible. The camera was on burst. 

[TomB_tx]

When I was in college back in the 1960s Leitz still promoted their cameras by putting on "slide shows" of Kodachrome slides taken with Leica cameras. I went along on one excursion to help take slides for an upcoming exhibit at the college. (NO - none of mine were selected.) But at that time many folks used projected slides to display their photographic (image capture) ability. I also took a photography class in college where that was the emphasis: seeing the picture and capturing it. The final class exercise was to shoot a 20 exp Kodachrome roll, and had to show all 20 to the class for critique. Quite a different emphasis than today.

[250swb]

10 hours ago, pgk said:

The problem with the image I am talking about is that for it to have been an real photograph, the world would have had to be situated somewhere with two suns! 

This is a real photograph by Jerry Uelsmann, it is made up of negatives printed onto photographic paper in the 1960's

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!

perhaps 'real' needs to be re-evaluated, this stuff was covered in the seminal Time Life series of photography books published in the early 70's.

Edited November 28, 2024 by 250swb

[pgk]

18 minutes ago, 250swb said:

This is a real photograph by Jerry Uelsmann, it is made up of negatives printed onto photographic paper in the 1960's .....

So its not real. Its a composite. Digital has made such composites easier but did not enable them to be invented. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Gustave_Rejlander  as the wiki entry says, he was [both] a photographer and an expert in photomontage. There is a clear distinction.

[vidya46]

Maybe some of us including me consider photography as duplicating /socializing what the eye sees.I am showing it to someone with the intention that they might want to see it someday .

Others consider photo graphy as an art and so it is completely up to the beholders imagination..like the screaming lady painting ..we don't see that in real life(even if I squint hard when my wife is yelling 😄)

With AI in the midst we have to start a whole new debate on ethics,trust etc.

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

27 minutes ago, pgk said:

So its not real. Its a composite. Digital has made such composites easier but did not enable them to be invented. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Gustave_Rejlander  as the wiki entry says, he was [both] a photographer and an expert in photomontage. There is a clear distinction.

So a negative exposed in an individual way on an individual taste of film and developed in individually chosen developers that is turned into a positive by printing on the individually chosen grade of photographic paper in individually chosen chemicals must also be 'unreal, because let's face it, that's how it's always been done? 

Photography is a composite of ideas at every stage or every photograph would be as bland as a passport mug shot. And that would go for digital as well in the 'real world' of having a normal opinion about how your photograph looks, except firmware has taken the place of the passport polaroid in the booth and now some photographers think they are breaking an inarticulate law by having an opinion against it. 

[SrMi]

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!

[Dazzajl]

Ansel’s analogy of the score and the performance has never been bettered as description of the photographic process. 

[pgk]

11 hours ago, Dazzajl said:

Ansel’s analogy of the score and the performance has never been bettered as description of the photographic process. 

Indeed, but unless I am very mistaken, the perfomance rareyl, if ever, includes adding a completely different piece of music into the piece so that it resemlbles a completely different piece. I honestly don't see what is difficult to understand about photography which is, in essence, about capturing a scene/subject in front of the camera using light and a light sensitive mechanism (chemical, physical, electronic). Interpretation of the scene is one thing, manipulation changes it entirely, and whilst the output may look 'photographic' it will not have been achieved through the use of light creating an image from what is in front of the camera. This has not changed although the technical methods of doing this have. We go around in circles with some seeming to believe that if the final image looks 'photographic' then it is the result of photography. The world runs on definitions and when they blur things become more difficult to understand.

[Dazzajl]

18 minutes ago, pgk said:

Indeed, but unless I am very mistaken, the perfomance rareyl, if ever, includes adding a completely different piece of music into the piece so that it resemlbles a completely different piece. I honestly don't see what is difficult to understand about photography which is, in essence, about capturing a scene/subject in front of the camera using light and a light sensitive mechanism (chemical, physical, electronic). Interpretation of the scene is one thing, manipulation changes it entirely, and whilst the output may look 'photographic' it will not have been achieved through the use of light creating an image from what is in front of the camera. This has not changed although the technical methods of doing this have. We go around in circles with some seeming to believe that if the final image looks 'photographic' then it is the result of photography. The world runs on definitions and when they blur things become more difficult to understand.

You'll get no argument from me there. I create composite images of all sorts for clients often and have no problem doing so at all. It doesn't float my boat artistically at all though and I wouldn't spend my own time doing it. 

[pgk]

57 minutes ago, Dazzajl said:

I create composite images of all sorts for clients often and have no problem doing so at all. It doesn't float my boat artistically at all though and I wouldn't spend my own time doing it. 

Been there, done that. I remember having to take a shot of a tour guide dressed up as a medieval monk, underground with a waterfall behind him. No mains lighting so utterly dependant on what I had down there. It was hideously humid, cold and the light was very dim resulting in real problems and long exposures. Finally resorted to two shots - waterfall background and 'monk' lit by torchlight (only possible solution) both at ~f/1.4 I think, and blending them afterwards. The resulting image won an award; not for me but for the tourist attraction, and the 'monk' got a free city hotel stayout of it I believe too. Such is life. Was the final image a photograph? I would suggest not. It was a photographically derived composite intended to show what the eye/brain thought it might/did see in the underground situation which existed. As such it worked fine (shot on Canon so I can't post here).

[Jeff S]

Some think that the term photography should only apply to film, not digital.

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2015/12/photography-vs-digital-imaging.html

Language evolves; hard to control.

Jeff

[Dazzajl]

4 hours ago, pgk said:

shot on Canon so I can't post here

I’m sure we’re not the only ones that use ‘real cameras’ when there are clients involved

[pgk]

33 minutes ago, Dazzajl said:

I’m sure we’re not the only ones that use ‘real cameras’ when there are clients involved

I actually shot one commission on both Canon and Leica. The client queried the use of the Leica (never heard of) but was reassured when I explained the relative cost compared to the Canon. Results were fine but perception could have been a problem.

[Anbaric]

24 minutes ago, pgk said:

I actually shot one commission on both Canon and Leica. The client queried the use of the Leica (never heard of) but was reassured when I explained the relative cost compared to the Canon. Results were fine but perception could have been a problem.

 

[SrMi]

6 hours ago, pgk said:

Indeed, but unless I am very mistaken, the perfomance rareyl, if ever, includes adding a completely different piece of music into the piece so that it resemlbles a completely different piece.

Improvisation is part of both classical and contemporary music performances.

[LocalHero1953]

Rachmaninov's 'Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini'? Bach 'photoshopped' many of his own works when he wrote the B Minor Mass. Handel cut-and-pasted bits of his Messiah into his Dettingen 'Te Deum' a year or so later. All these pieces remain music.

(NB this is just Friday afternoon argument for the sake of it - but it also shows that Adams's analogy can't be stretched very far.)

[pgk]

There are always exceptions😁

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear