M4cr0s
Back In Black
On the many levels of manipulation photographs are subject to on their journey from photons to pixels. Primary meant to give a brief and simplistic intro the subject. No wish to step on anyones toes though.
"Photoshoped" have become a term bordering on an insult lately with the advent of digital photography. There seems to be a fairly vocal and widespread sentiment that altering and manipulating images is something fairly new, and a negative thing done by photographers and photo editors lacking scruples and integrity. Especially in fashion photography there have been numerous cases over the past few years with ridiculously retouched models looking more like something from outer space than real human beings. read more
Comments?
"Photoshoped" have become a term bordering on an insult lately with the advent of digital photography. There seems to be a fairly vocal and widespread sentiment that altering and manipulating images is something fairly new, and a negative thing done by photographers and photo editors lacking scruples and integrity. Especially in fashion photography there have been numerous cases over the past few years with ridiculously retouched models looking more like something from outer space than real human beings. read more
Comments?
dee
Well-known
It's an age old argument from the infancy of photography [ and art , for that matter ]
digital has brought it into prominence .
Is the magenta cast of my M8 ' real ' just because it has not been altered ?
If I do convert to monochrome - am I altering ' reality ' ?
I would hate to be a ' Photgrapher ' , I'll just stick to snapshots and a little tidying up ...
and nothing is ' real ' within Autism anyway LOL .
digital has brought it into prominence .
Is the magenta cast of my M8 ' real ' just because it has not been altered ?
If I do convert to monochrome - am I altering ' reality ' ?
I would hate to be a ' Photgrapher ' , I'll just stick to snapshots and a little tidying up ...
and nothing is ' real ' within Autism anyway LOL .
M4cr0s
Back In Black
Original Polaroids are real.
bmattock
Veteran
Nothing changes. Bold emphasis mine in the quote below:
bmattock
Veteran
They're real photographs, true. I don't think we can claim they are necessarily accurate depictions, however.
http://sharongoldner.com/Photographypage.html
M4cr0s
Back In Black
1899! Yeah, nothing new under the sun. I just wish more people would realize that, and have a more laidback stance to photography and "realness".
We used to back out the amount of energy in a scene by knowing the response curves of the film used and aperture of the pinhole used for the exposure. That was 30 years ago. Was it watts per steradian...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiance
It was real enough after going through a 6000 line FORTRAN code...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiance
It was real enough after going through a 6000 line FORTRAN code...
Sparrow
Veteran
my prints are real, it's the world that they represent that's imaginary ... except to me then it's real
it's all perceptual at the end of the day
it's all perceptual at the end of the day
wgerrard
Veteran
A photo is as real as anything else. In my book, an image can be tweaked considerably and remain accurate. When content is added or removed from a photo, then it is obviously no longer an accurate capture. But it is just as legitimate.
The question seems to be rooted in an assumption that a photo must mirror reality or breach the viewer's trust.
The question seems to be rooted in an assumption that a photo must mirror reality or breach the viewer's trust.
Richard G
Veteran
Last night I looked through Walker Evans's 'American Photographs'. Whatever he did with the prinitng, however the picures might later be adapted, solarized, coloured or cropped it is difficult to see how the essence that he perceived could be easily corrupted.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Capture, Collage or Creation?
Capture, Collage or Creation?
True, it's a bit of a dilemma, but much of it is based on a traditional view of photography. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But I do recall that at various times in the history of art that certain "movements" or "schools" of avant-garde artists were pilloried by the established art set for not producing "real art". History shows the outcome.
I think digital photography is somehow in the same realm, and to manipulate an image isn't really any different to an artist scrubbing out or overpainting some part of his/her canvas that seemed to need "improvement" or at least a different treatment.
Having said that though, (and admitting to being a traditionalist - as in B&W film) it bothers me that someone can drop a sky or part image into another image and by the act of silence allow people to believe it represented the scene before the camera. Only partly true. At the borderline of improving an image and before getting to the stage of substitution and gross manipulation there's a whole grey area that is largely indefinable. It probably doesn't matter except in some competition context, and maybe the answer there is that all entries have to be accompanied by the original negative (film) or RAW file (digital) to verify what the starting point was.
But I think that's probably unworkable so we may have to rely on people's integrity or else most likely just give up worrying about it at all and simply judge the image as presented and for what it is rather than obsess about the means of producing the image.
I admit that if I see an image I really like it's a disappointment if I find out that it's been the subject of considerable manipulation over and above what would be possible in the darkroom, but that's just me and others would have no problem with that.
Capture, Collage or Creation?
True, it's a bit of a dilemma, but much of it is based on a traditional view of photography. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But I do recall that at various times in the history of art that certain "movements" or "schools" of avant-garde artists were pilloried by the established art set for not producing "real art". History shows the outcome.
I think digital photography is somehow in the same realm, and to manipulate an image isn't really any different to an artist scrubbing out or overpainting some part of his/her canvas that seemed to need "improvement" or at least a different treatment.
Having said that though, (and admitting to being a traditionalist - as in B&W film) it bothers me that someone can drop a sky or part image into another image and by the act of silence allow people to believe it represented the scene before the camera. Only partly true. At the borderline of improving an image and before getting to the stage of substitution and gross manipulation there's a whole grey area that is largely indefinable. It probably doesn't matter except in some competition context, and maybe the answer there is that all entries have to be accompanied by the original negative (film) or RAW file (digital) to verify what the starting point was.
But I think that's probably unworkable so we may have to rely on people's integrity or else most likely just give up worrying about it at all and simply judge the image as presented and for what it is rather than obsess about the means of producing the image.
I admit that if I see an image I really like it's a disappointment if I find out that it's been the subject of considerable manipulation over and above what would be possible in the darkroom, but that's just me and others would have no problem with that.
aniMal
Well-known
Technically speaking, no photography can represent reality 100% accurate. (Just have a look at the arguments of Kant...)
What matters is the attitude, how committed is a photographer to representing reality? And of course there is a span from scientific/strict documentary to the surreal.
Most photographers had their own take on what film and technique to choose way before digital, and as I see it this was often a subjective interpretation based on reality.
Digital makes all this so much easier, but also the lack of limitations makes things different. I feel it is so much easier getting into all kinds of post processing, and that the lines are blurring somewhat.
Myself, I tend to limit myself to what would have been possible to do in a darkroom. But then, I stretch it - doing things that I know I would not have been able to do myself... Or things that would have taken days of work...
But does it necessarily make it all a fake? Sometimes I guess a modern, properly processed digital image sometimes can be an even better representation. The eye itself has such a great ability to perceive colours, take in detail, and seeing all shades of light. So, is not the photograph that looks more "real" to someone who has actually seen what is pictured?
Perhaps the only way to check is to bring around a set of prints to compare directly with what was photographed?
What matters is the attitude, how committed is a photographer to representing reality? And of course there is a span from scientific/strict documentary to the surreal.
Most photographers had their own take on what film and technique to choose way before digital, and as I see it this was often a subjective interpretation based on reality.
Digital makes all this so much easier, but also the lack of limitations makes things different. I feel it is so much easier getting into all kinds of post processing, and that the lines are blurring somewhat.
Myself, I tend to limit myself to what would have been possible to do in a darkroom. But then, I stretch it - doing things that I know I would not have been able to do myself... Or things that would have taken days of work...
But does it necessarily make it all a fake? Sometimes I guess a modern, properly processed digital image sometimes can be an even better representation. The eye itself has such a great ability to perceive colours, take in detail, and seeing all shades of light. So, is not the photograph that looks more "real" to someone who has actually seen what is pictured?
Perhaps the only way to check is to bring around a set of prints to compare directly with what was photographed?
literiter
Well-known
"Real" is mostly a matter of opinion, but being there, is mostly real.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Nothing is real.
Everything is an illusion.
Some illusions represet some illusions better than some other illusions, to some people.
Or to quote Terry Pratchett, speaking in the voice of Esme Weatherwax, "Things that try to look like things often look more like things than things. Well known fact."
Cheers,
R.
Everything is an illusion.
Some illusions represet some illusions better than some other illusions, to some people.
Or to quote Terry Pratchett, speaking in the voice of Esme Weatherwax, "Things that try to look like things often look more like things than things. Well known fact."
Cheers,
R.
reiki_
Well-known
Worst thing about this photography is that you can't go for a long time without it getting intertwined with philosophy. And that's serious business.
Nescio
Well-known
That photography is not a true representation of fact is an old bore. What's interesting though is how we judge this deformed concave/convex image of reality (and that may just be the very reason of this forum as an RF cam can do without a mirror).
To me it seems that the media (and that's us in some way or another) are getting more and more fed up with virtuality - remember Second Life? - just as economic wet dreams have become a nightmare for many and casual or street photography is getting more attention these days. Something like a back to basics desire. If it'll turn out to be just another fashion thing, time will tell.
To me it seems that the media (and that's us in some way or another) are getting more and more fed up with virtuality - remember Second Life? - just as economic wet dreams have become a nightmare for many and casual or street photography is getting more attention these days. Something like a back to basics desire. If it'll turn out to be just another fashion thing, time will tell.
climbing_vine
Well-known
A company that makes a terrible video codec.
Otherwise, this is a tired, played-out conversation. I mean this constructively: you might want to hit the library. You'll find a wealth of debate on this going back to 2000 BC, at least, that contains every word and sentence anyone will say here.
Otherwise, this is a tired, played-out conversation. I mean this constructively: you might want to hit the library. You'll find a wealth of debate on this going back to 2000 BC, at least, that contains every word and sentence anyone will say here.
