Photography or digital art?

[DexterPunk]

http://petapixel.com/2014/01/16/rolex-r ... on-detail/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Speed]

Definitely photography in my mind, that is not a heavily edited photo in my opinion.
The person has certainly gone to a lot of trouble to make it look perfect but the actual edit isn’t that dramatic.
It’s pretty standard stuff for magazine advertising and I think that most professional photographers wouldn’t submit less and mostly wouldn’t even do the editing themselves.

The question of editing is close to me and I’ve often thought about putting my thoughts on paper. Now is as good a time as any.

We are all resistant to change but I believe that Photoshop editing is here to stay in photography…..in all areas excepting journalistic, maybe……I’ve seen plenty of heavily edited photos in Journalism as well.
I went to a seminar last year and the photographer said that they often used to spend 3 days in the dark room editing one photo. Most people wouldn’t question that, because it was film.
Interestingly, I watched a “Creative Live” Painter X3 tutorial last week where Jeremy Sutton was telling how back in the 60s there was an argument in the art industry as to whether using the newly introduced Acrylic Paint was actually art. Pretty ridiculous it seems now, but a serious argument back then.
The same argument is waged whenever a new technology is introduced to photography. When “Auto Focus” and “Digital Cameras” were originally introduced they were touted as not being “real” photography.

Most of my heavily edited images are entered into "Photography" competitions and a good percentage of the images they are up against have a similar amount of editing.
They seem pretty well accepted as photography for the most part....actually the ARSE forums are probably the only place where I find the legitimacy of editing questioned.

[Exar Kun]

They seem pretty well accepted as photography for the most part....actually the ARSE forums are probably the only place where I find the legitimacy of editing questioned.

That's what you get for consorting with us high brow types.

[DexterPunk]

Hahahaha. That actually made me lol EK.

I just have to wonder, in the time he took to shoot that properly, which he has definitely done. That would take at least a couple of hours in the studio, then the number of hours he must have spent editing the image. Couldn't it have even produced as a 3D model in similar time?

Anyway, I have no issue with heavy editing, I've just never done it. I don't think I've ever spent more than about 30-45 mins on an image. And those were all for exhibition at the end of Uni. We were always taught to do as much as you can to get it right in camera, which for the most part we did. The arts students used to take fairly average studio shots and then spend hours upon hours in the computer lab editing them.

Whatever floats your boat I guess, but I'd rather nut out a shot behind the camera than spend that time behind a computer. This example it can't be done though. Can't really practically use gobos on a subject that small.

Strangely enough, or maybe not, I prefer the before image over the after.


Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.

[Speed]

LOL Exar.

Yeah it would be pretty dumb to not try and get the shot as good as you could in camera before editing.
I definitely prefer the edited watch shot.

[Speed]

I came across this this morning and thought it might be of interest.
The first photo of Joan Crawford was retouched in 1931. http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=915417" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I came across a very serious composite image last year that was done in 1857.....can't be stuffed trying to find it again now though.

[Speed]

I’ve been asked to give a Photoshopping tutorial at a camera club and in my preparation I looked at some history of photo manipulation and came across a few of the images I was talking about in my previous post.
I thought it might be of interest.

Oscar Gustave Rejlander: Two Ways of Llife shot in 1857 comprised of 32 negatives.

Oscar Gustave Rejlander_Two Ways of Llife_1857_32 x images.jpg

Henry-Peach-Robinson: Fading-Away shot in 1858

Henry-Peach-Robinson_Fading-Away_1858.jpg

Henry-Peach-Robinson: When-the-Day's-Work-is-Done shot in 1877 comprised of 6 negatives.

Henry-Peach-Robinson_When-the-Day's-Work-is-Done_1877_6-x-images.jpg

I feel that many photographers think that people who use Photoshop extensively, do so to improve a shit photo.
My belief is that the most amazing Photoshoppers are also amazing photographers who wouldn’t want to work on shit photos.

[DexterPunk]

I had a lengthy conversation with my old head of dept at Uni once, and we both agreed that, yes you can use those tools to 'fix' a photo... But it's even more powerful if you understand your media and use the extra latitude and information to enhance what you've captured, and shoot it accordingly. It's no different from exposing for shadows and developing for highlights, or vice versa depending on your film stock. I shoot with editing in mind. Having said that, I'd prefer if possible to spend less time editing than shooting. That's quite realistic if done well and you're shooting for accuracy (ie medical imaging at work) rather than aesthetics. Correct is either correct or not in that scenario.


Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.