Overprocessed images?, Is it art?, RFF civility, etc.

[vrgard]

Came across the following post on a Yahoo group list I read and thought others here might appreciate it (e.g., Joe, it relates to your earlier question about whether what we do is art). I've deleted the name of the poster as well as the name of the other forum referenced in the posting.

-Randy

"> Perhaps it's merely me, but having spent the last several decades
> making and looking at photographs made from film, it does seem that
> the images on xxx.xxx have been photoshopped to death, almost as if
> each contributor strives to outdo the other. While many of these
> "photos" are stunning in terms of location, content, and composition,
> I'm inclined to wonder why these photographers didn't just leave well
> enough alone.
>
> In my view, a work of art succeeds if it evokes an emotional response
> in both the maker and the viewer. These digitally manipulated
> over-saturated (color) things leave me wondering what ever happened to
> real photography, and they leave me with an emotional response I'm
> sure the photographer never intended.
>
> For something completely different, the images on rangefinderforum.com
> - and considering the nature of rangefinder cameras - are mostly
> streetshooter images and candids of people, and they seem honest and
> natural. And in the forums themselves, diverse opinions are respected
> (much like this forum) and rarely does someone get flamed. Again, you
> couldn't say this about certain forums on xxx.xxx.
>
> Back to my main topic: the over-manipulation of photos on xxx.xxx,
> is it just me that perceives them this way?"

 

[markinlondon]

Every week I buy Amateur Photographer mainly for something to read on the train to work and every week they seem to have the same pictures in the "Readers' Portfolio" section. Highly saturated Velvia landscapes, macro flower and insect shots and wildlife pictures. The quality and content of these portfolios almost never varies, sometimes the locations of the landscapes are the same, and yet people continue to travel and shoot these locations and continue to be published. I think the "camera club" aesthetic has a lot to answer for and (over)use of PS is just the latest phase in its evolution.
I also take exception to the idea that "digital is much easier" as the amount of time and effort that goes into post production seems to give the lie to this. I always attempt to get the image on the film so that it prints (traditionally) with the minimum of local contrast adjustment. In fact it probably takes me longer to scan and adjust an image for web presentation than it does to print.
It's interesting to see the old canard about rf's being "best for street photography" trotted out yet again. What exactly is a "street photographer"?

 

[planetjoe]

Hmm.

Hmm.

I like the passing comment in that post about RFF's good-natured community. It's nice that we're known for that (even though it doesn't always seem the case here on the inside...)

As for the "art" question, all I can offer is my opinion. These days, I've been trying to be very open and accepting, as far as what we might call "artistic license" is concerned. I'm not sure if others would consider my photography art, but I personally feel that the act of displaying a created image can be an artistic one, regardless of the creative intent. It doesn't matter to me how the image was made, or even if the creator intended an artistic interpretation. "Eye of the Beholder", all that.

Concerning the OP's comment on "...digitally manipulated, over-saturated..." images, I don't think that makes them any less artistic, at least in terms of how others might choose to interpret them. I feel, though, that I would begin to object if such work was presented as a challenge or contrast to my own work, which right now happens to be analog black-and-white, with minimal post processing. That's all. They're just different.

I don't think I'm trying to suggest that everything belongs in it's own category, but we might agree that there are boundaries among the different images we create. Our only problem would be where to put those boundaries. Thankfully we don't have to decide.

I will say, though, that there's a lot to be said for courtesy, appreciation, and constructive criticism; these are RFF's core qualities, I think. That's the lesson to take from the OP's experience.

Thanks for an interesting thread, vrgard.


Cheers,
--joe.

 

[Jocko]

This is very much like the debate 60 or so years ago between what was termed "the new photography" (basically the sort of photography here) and the older school of Pictorialism, with its heavily manipulated prints and painterly aspirations.

There is an essential difference in these approaches. Personally, I do think there's a point when a picture becomes a digitally manipulated illustration rather than a photograph. It may work on its own terms, but those are not the criteria we would usually judge photographs by.

Cheers, Ian

 

[markinlondon]

This is very much like the debate 60 or so years ago between what was termed "the new photography" (basically the sort of photography here) and the older school of Pictorialism, with its heavily manipulated prints and painterly aspirations.

There is an essential difference in these approaches. Personally, I do think there's a point when a picture becomes a digitally manipulated illustration rather than a photograph....

Cheers, Ian

Maybe the manipulators (ooh-err) are "the new Pictorialists" . Oh no, here we go again 😱

 

[Jocko]

Maybe the manipulators (ooh-err) are "the new Pictorialists" . Oh no, here we go again 😱

I think so! Just as the new technology of fast film and 35mm cameras created one school of photography, so the next new technology recreates the other 🙂

Cheers, Ian

 

[Gid]

This is a can of worms 😱

I don't mind how an image is created - charcoal, pen and ink, oils, photography, digital etc., or how it has been manipulated. The important point is how it is perceived and received. One man's art is another man's poison and we can each make our choice.

As far as photography is concerned, I prefer mine raw (as far as is possible) with the minimum of post processing (either in a wet print or via digital), but accept that "tweaking" an image post capture may be necessary to get the optimum result (contrast, dodge & burn, cropping). I think it is harder to create a "good" image this way, but if you do it is down to your own skill (maybe with some luck) in capturing the image and not the use of post processing.

Mark,

Agree regarding AP - this week's was just the same. These images are not bad, just not original. I prefer more gritty photographs and B&W, but do take "pretty" shots as well 😱

 

[iml]

My problem with heavily manipulated images is that they're very rarely any good. This isn't because of a problem with the process itself, but simply an acknowledgement that very few people make truly interesting work, whether that's in photography or any other creative medium.

Personally, although I only shoot digitally nowadays, I do very little post-processing: b&w conversion, and a bit of sharpening, cropping, and contrast adjustment is about the limit of it. This isn't purely an artistic decision, it's mainly because I'm lazy, but also it's because when I do find myself fiddling a lot with an image, I find I rarely end up improving it. I prefer simplicity, of process and of final image.

Ian

 

[jlw]

I think the big problem is not manipulation vs. non-manipulation, but in what the intent is.

Some people enjoy photography as a way of self-validation. They approach it as a competition, almost like a sport. They enjoy being able to say, "My shots are as good as the ones in this magazine."

Other people enjoy photography as a means of self-exploration. They approach it as a way of getting at feelings they might otherwise find difficult to access. They enjoy being able to say, "My shots are uniquely mine, not like anybody else's."

These viewpoints aren't even opposites; they're almost in completely different universes. The only thing they have in common is that they both happen to use the technology of photography.

So it's no wonder each group tends not to "get" what the other group is doing, finds their photographs not worth looking at, and regards their reasons for being in photography as trivial or dubious.

It's probably a good thing we've all got cameras, lenses and materials to argue about, or the two groups probably wouldn't communicate at all!

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

This is a can of worms 😱

Yes, but it's lots of protein. Gummy worms, though, everybody likes those (I think).

Any medium is prone to be "abused"; kitsch runs in everybody's blood, whether it's red or blue (or green, you heartless Vulcans)

I take the "roses are red / violets are blue" of photography as inevitable noise in the overcrowded arena. Only few can make noise their own and stand out -- or not stand out, some people are a tough cookie, they prefer to stay that way.

It's like watching Jerry Springer. You cringe, but you can't look away; and the ratings are spectacular. 😉

 

[wrenhunter]

My problem with heavily manipulated images is that they're very rarely any good. This isn't because of a problem with the process itself, but simply an acknowledgement that very few people make truly interesting work, whether that's in photography or any other creative medium

Yes, it's rather like bad pop music. Technically, you have to say it's art, because it is music. But the content is horrible, and the results are completely uninteresting.

Overall, the question is worth considering, especially now that we have so many ways to process images, and so easily. I suppose it does depend on your goal, or the "universe" you live in -- are you trying to show the world as the camera saw it? As you experienced it? As it ought to look?

 

[RML]

Well, photography isn't art (or Art) to begin with. It's a medium, like language.

I can find myself in the remark about the photo/camera club aesthetic. Most of the members of the average camera club won't know a good from a bad photo if it hit them in the face and shat on their heads.

And where once dark room skills were the battle ground (and a tough battle ground at that), nowadays any nitwit thinks PS can turn a crap photo into a master piece. I can't bear listening to gear talk much, but having to listen to PS talk is much worse. Often one member is a bit more skilled (as in knowing where to find the help function in PS) and states his/her skills as gospel, while not even knowing about curves or how to use them.

The worst isn't the totally uninspired photos many bring to be shown, but the totally insincerely friendly and "constructive" advice given to the showees. At the same time they would condemn a photo because it looks too PS'ed while the photo isn't PS'ed to begin with. (Happened to my IR photos. Some didn't like them because they found them too PS'ed). Yet they don't shy back from using PS to remove unwanted elements in a photo, boost colour way beyond Velvia, want every horizon to be horizontal even when the excitement is actually in the tilted horizon, etc.

I try to remain a free spirit and honest to my own convictions, and not submit to the general aesthetics in the club.

 

[Gid]

Most of the members of the average camera club won't know a good from a bad photo if it hit them in the face and shat on their head.

I don't belong to a camera club. If this is what goes on there, then I'm never going to join one. Sounds way to dangerous. 😀

 

[PlantedTao]

Yes, it's rather like bad pop music. Technically, you have to say it's art, because it is music. But the content is horrible, and the results are completely uninteresting.
...

Great comparison. Art depends a lot on what you are being told is good(general public)...like the radio with pop music. Your talking about cookie cutter music that they promote, so people listen and enjoy it and never expose themselves to the diverse art of music...same with photography.

of course I have found my photo niche, which is the look and feel that many people achieve here. I appreciate the vivid over saturated landscape photos, but I like the down to earth, rough nature that many photos exhibit here on this site. These interest me...but most find them uninteresting and the content not that great, not vivid enough. It is just different styles as jlw summed up...

 

[DavidH]

Every week I buy Amateur Photographer mainly for something to read on the train to work and every week they seem to have the same pictures in the "Readers' Portfolio" section. Highly saturated Velvia landscapes, macro flower and insect shots and wildlife pictures.

A year ago, some of those macro insect shots were mine...
So, it'll be subjective then... 🙂

As for Photoshop...well, a picture is either good in the viewer's eye or not. Whether it's arrived at by being a perfect shot in-camera or an hour in a darkroom or six hours in front of a monitor, if someone thinks it's good then...it is.

A colleague proudly showed me a shot of a red squirrel some years ago...and it was fantastic. Truly superb. And it earned him a lot of money and people said 'wow what a fantastic shot'. It was used on a calendar. He shot it on slide film. It was printed direct from the slide and he didn't even own a computer - let alone use Photoshop.
It was a pure and 'raw' shot of a squirrel...in a 4ft sq cage in his garden. Very nicely but very artificially staged.

We could argue this one round and round forever. 😉

Dave

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Well, photography isn't art (or Art) to begin with. It's a medium, like language.

So Poetry isn't Art, it's a medium...like language?

Or Theatre isn't Art, it's a medium...like spoken language?

 

[Magnus]

Art is a medium..... You have just succesfully answered your own question. Not all media's are art, but art is a medium.

as for over saturated fields of corn, macro bumble bees... whats wrong with that ?
Makingad-hoc shots of people in the street and bringing the end result into a box called "people" .. I wonder which shots are the more boring ....


ahhh but now we are talking fashion and coolness or whatever you might like to call it, this makes all the difference, but most shots remain the same .... boring

 

[kbg32]

This argument is as old as photography itself - check out Oscar Rejlander. It came to its height in the 20s and 30s. Mortensen vs. Adams. Fueled by the popular photomagazine of the times - Camera Arts I believe. "Ansel Adams and his f/64 cohorts held their contemporary, the pictorialist William Mortensen, in high contempt. Willard Van Dyke went so far as to describe Mortensen's work as "disgusting." All regarded him as "the enemy" of straight photography. Mortensen's photographs were highly manipulated, often worked over with razor blade and carbon pencil." - Ed Buffaloe, http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Mortensen/mortensen.html

Beaumont Newhall's "History of Photgraphy" was biasedly written for many, many years, leaving out Wiliam Mortensen. Newhall was a great friend of Adams. Eventually Mortensen was added in Newhall's history as well as other pictorialists. Have a look at older Newhall's books and compare them to later updated versions. Quite interesting.

There will always be "two" sides - those that manipulate and those that don't. Neither is wrong. It is what photgraphy is about. Either you capture what you see or capture what you see and feel. If you don't think Adams work was heavily manipulated, you are immensly mistaken. I have respect for Adams, but he was tremendously contradictory in what he had to say about his work philosophically and what he actually did. Long story short - all photographic images are manipulated in some way, by how we see, our exposures, equipment, and how we present them.

 

[Toby]

Every photo is a manipulation of the world, a tightly framed slice of time, the trouble is most people pick the wrong slice of time and are pointing the camera in the wrong place. If you go on to flickr and watch the unedited stream of photos coming you'll realise how rare interesting photography is.

 

[humanized_form]

the thing about digital imaging is that some level of post manipulation is mandatory to get the best results. i just don't like that. you are basically exposing in camera to not blow the highlights, then tweaking in post to make the final image.

this is why i like slides so much, the straight out of the camera goodness. manipulation done in camera.