Debate

[Block 18]

With the advent of computer programs the likes of Photoshop, at what stage would a photograph be consdered no longer a photo but a work of art?

 

As a relative novice to photography I was brought a Cannon 350 digital SLR two years ago and have developed some skills in capturing some shots that would be totally impossibe with a standard digital camera.

 

Now I can load these onto my computer and if I had a programme I could totally edit the picture beyond recognition. Adding and removing bits an pieces.

 

My view is that the skill in a good picture is in the original taking of the picture and not in the after manipulation. Your views please gents.

[Weston Super Saint]

I agree.

The only editing I tend to do is a little bit of sharpening and adding a bit of light sometimes.

I don't really enjoy the 'unnatural' look that a lot of photos get after 'shopping...

[Guest Dark Sotonic Mills]

I only do what I could have done before (maybe to a lesser extent then) if I processed my own film. A little over or under exposure, tweaking focusses etc..

Once you enter the realm of PhotoShop (which I don't use - I have it but have no clue how to even start with anything) the you enter the realm of Art.

It doesn't make the image any less impressive, it is just a different process and perhaps not as kosher as the old-time photographers would like.

[Minty]

There were plenty of ways you could edit a photograph before digital... dodging and burning being arguably the most common... many people I know who use photoshop didn't realise that they were techniques used when developing film during the chemical process, and not just PS tools with the same name!

 

To my mind, a photograph is a photograph whilst it portrays a scene that you could expect to see (more or less) with the naked eye... once colours become unnatural or too many items are removed/added etc, then it becomes too false. However, there is no 'line in the sand'... different photos can accommodate a different amount of editing before they look unnatural. More often than not it comes down to how comfortable you are, as the photographer, being able to say 'do you like my photo?', whilst knowing how much editing or otherwise has been carried out.

 

I completely agree with Block 18's last line... photoshopped images can still be very impressive, but moreso for the PS skills on show, not the photographic skill... some togs are good at PS, and some aren't, but the skills required are two seperate areas and so should be distinguished accordingly.

[st alex]

I like phots that look honest, (as they would in real life). The only thing I rarely do is to alter brightness/contrast on photoshop to improve the clarity, or if i'm stiching photos together to try and make a panorama.

[Saint Martini]

[...]To my mind, a photograph is a photograph whilst it portrays a scene that you could expect to see (more or less) with the naked eye...[...]

 

You do know that that statement would exclude any black&white photo from being a photograph. I do agree with the sentiment but I think the statement needs a bit of fine-tuning.

[Baj]

You do know that that statement would exclude any black&white photo from being a photograph. I do agree with the sentiment but I think the statement needs a bit of fine-tuning.

 

What about the colour blind ?

[Saint Martini]

What about the colour blind ?

 

The wouldn't see the colour in a colour photograph anyway now would they?

[Baj]

The wouldn't see the colour in a colour photograph anyway now would they?

 

Therefore Mintys statement is accurate if you are colourblind.

[Saint Martini]

Therefore Mintys statement is accurate if you are colourblind.

 

:cool: Fine. But only IF someone is colourblind.

[Ponty]

Colourblind people don't see in B&W ffs...

[Weston Super Saint]

Colourblind people don't see in B&W ffs...

 

Just shades of grey....

[Saint Martini]

Colourblind people don't see in B&W ffs...

 

Never let a fact get in the way of a good argument.

[Robsk II]

To my mind, a photograph is a photograph whilst it portrays a scene that you could expect to see (more or less) with the naked eye... once colours become unnatural or too many items are removed/added etc, then it becomes too false. However, there is no 'line in the sand'... different photos can accommodate a different amount of editing before they look unnatural. More often than not it comes down to how comfortable you are, as the photographer, being able to say 'do you like my photo?', whilst knowing how much editing or otherwise has been carried out.

 

Totall agree.

 

You can turn a mediocre photograph into a good or interesting piece with editing, "ehancing", etc. Even quite simple tools. It remains valid as a product, but not as a photograph. The photo itself is the raw (RAW??) image, mise-en-scene and all that.