With all the discussion from photography purists on the evils of software manipulation and photographic integrity do they feel that shooting photos in RAW mode and then "developing" them the way that looks best violate this integrity?
No, in the same way that printing a film negative and adjusting the colour or contrast or brightness does nothing to violate integrity.
I don't think integrity has anything whatsoever to do with the automatic settings in a camera or if you take a lower level control over that initial development.
In much the same way I don't feel that walmart 1-hour photos are the epitome of film photographic integrity compared to more painstaking darkroom work.
I think RAW development with manual involvement is certainly more creative than picking one of 3 presets in a camera and letting it go, so from that perspective I feel it has more artistic veracity and involvement.
Don't forget, we are voting for the images on this site, i.e. the end result, not for the photographer or his/her skills.
What we are voting on are photographs captured by a digital camera.
And, very importantly, if it is a Member Challenge, that captured image can be manipulated however the photograph sees fit. If an Open Challenge, then the permitted manipulations are more restrictive.
If I do something really difficult photographically and pull it off marginally, is that better or worse art than someone who creates something beautiful using digital tools (either a DSLR or photoshop, or a rendering package)
Does it have to be difficult to be good ? Is more difficult, better art, even if it looks the same ? I feel you are saying that this is true but I can't grasp why that should be.
I take your point, and I must admit I do associate a certain amount of 'worth' based on the skill involved in its creation.
I disagree. I think painting in the whole pic is exactly the same thing as only painting in light rays, raytracing in landscapes, or whatever. The difference is only a matter of degree.
Originally posted by Gordon:
I think we can easily establish the boundary cases. Mag's lens cap on and paint everything on the black canvas approach I think is unassailably not a photograph, even though the image originated in a camera.
I disagree. I think painting in the whole pic is exactly the same thing as only painting in light rays, raytracing in landscapes, or whatever. The difference is only a matter of degree.
Originally posted by Gordon:
I think we can easily establish the boundary cases. Mag's lens cap on and paint everything on the black canvas approach I think is unassailably not a photograph, even though the image originated in a camera.
edited to remove a typo...
You can't just say 'I disagree' then go on to agree, just to be disagreeable. I said we can easily establish boundary cases, then its just a question of the degree. You agreed!
In fact isn't everything after you take it out of the camera "a matter of degree"? Aren't we having the same debate/arguement as we had for about six months before the the rules were Advance(d)? I doubt if it would end if we reduced the rules to only max 640 and 150kb.
I suggest that we have an occasional challenge where your entry must be as it comes out of the camera with the only editing allowed being rotation, crop and resize. Could be either themed or free study. Try that a few times and see what we get.
I suggest that we have an occasional challenge where your entry must be as it comes out of the camera with the only editing allowed being rotation, crop and resize. Could be either themed or free study. Try that a few times and see what we get.
We tried this just this past summer on the "Past" challenge...generated some very nice photos but also a ton of discussion, both pro & con
Seems that the old adage is true...you can't please everyone
I suggest that we have an occasional challenge where your entry must be as it comes out of the camera with the only editing allowed being rotation, crop and resize. Could be either themed or free study. Try that a few times and see what we get.
I'd like to see those too. Though the argument against them has been:
its not fair to those with high-end SLRs as they are designed to have some amount of post-processing
its not fair to those with low-end cameras, because the images aren't as clean as from a SLR.
its not fair
I think there are degrees of editing which are appropriate for different challenges.
E.g., soft focus is one where 'advanced editing' levels the playing field for the majority of smaller sensor cameras were significantly shallow DoF is very hard to achieve in camera, compared to a F1.2 lens on an SLR body.
A journalism challenge would be more attuned to the really restrictive or basic editing you described for example.
word - if its GOOD give it props - if its not vote it accordingly -
and to ammend my earlier post - ...and the subject of the photo originated from a cameras sensor... ie no lense cap trickery the sensor would have to make a recording of light hitting it with some amount of detail being retained.
Btw, it's a little bit contradictory that in this thread, some say 'it's the final outcome that matters more than the method' but in the post commentary for this amazing shot by scab-lab some of the same people say "If you really caught two perfect drops in mid-air, this is an amazing capture. If the dripping water was added in after the fact, a lot less impressive. "
Indeed. When the "trial rules" were just going into effect, the first few challenges I found myself looking at pictures going "I wonder if they did blah in Photoshop" instead of looking at the image on my screen for what it was -- what the photographer wanted me to see. Since that time, I have decided that I should be evaluating the final presentation, and although I'm curious about the "details" behind some shots, the important thing is the photographer's "final product", regardless of how it was achieved (as long as it follows the same rules as everybody else).
Another great photography innovator was Man Ray, who acquired his first camera in 1915. He broke every rule in the known photography world and photography is richer for his transgressions. So, it's likely that this discussion has been going on for nearly 100 years...
Another great photography innovator was Man Ray, who acquired his first camera in 1915. He broke every rule in the known photography world and photography is richer for his transgressions. So, it's likely that this discussion has been going on for nearly 100 years...
O yes!
and, heresy of heresies, you can do most everything that he did, within the 'basic' editing rules that were available. This is something that the anti-advanced rules perspective never seem to address.
Basic rules editing only
It was why I droned on about intent being more important than tools for a while, but nobody seemed to seriously engage in that discussion.
i like those. i would welcome those every couple months or so ..
We had one before called 'The Past'. it was neat.
Originally posted by coolhar:
I suggest that we have an occasional challenge where your entry must be as it comes out of the camera with the only editing allowed being rotation, crop and resize. Could be either themed or free study. Try that a few times and see what we get.
SO you reached a different perspective ultimately. But given that at one point you found that it 'less impressive' if it had been done with photoshop, surely part of you still understands this perspective ? : )
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
Change of heart? Just curious.
Indeed. When the "trial rules" were just going into effect, the first few challenges I found myself looking at pictures going "I wonder if they did blah in Photoshop" instead of looking at the image on my screen for what it was -- what the photographer wanted me to see. Since that time, I have decided that I should be evaluating the final presentation, and although I'm curious about the "details" behind some shots, the important thing is the photographer's "final product", regardless of how it was achieved (as long as it follows the same rules as everybody else).
Another great photography innovator was Man Ray, who acquired his first camera in 1915. He broke every rule in the known photography world and photography is richer for his transgressions. So, it's likely that this discussion has been going on for nearly 100 years...
O yes!
and, heresy of heresies, you can do most everything that he did, within the 'basic' editing rules that were available...
I doubt Man Ray would do now what he did then, if he were alive. Some of his work did not even involve a camera, never mind a digital one. Basic- yes, perhaps, but hardly within DPC Basic Editing rules.
Although, I do agree with your emphasis on intent.
