Mike, I respectfully disagree. If all that matters is the result, then why do we have any rules in any competition at all?
If all that matters is the final image, why bother with a camera at all? Just use CGI, and call it a day.
I am not against why Gyaban does, or CGI. I think of it more like NASCAR, or Formula 1. There are rules for the competitions. The idea is to win within the rule set.
Mike, I respectfully disagree. If all that matters is the result, then why do we have any rules in any competition at all?
If all that matters is the final image, why bother with a camera at all? Just use CGI, and call it a day.
I am not against why Gyaban does, or CGI. I think of it more like NASCAR, or Formula 1. There are rules for the competitions. The idea is to win within the rule set.
First off, the series is super. The stillness of the water is terrific.
But forget DPC rules for a second, is there a difference between setting up a huge scene and then snapping a dual exposure with a special lens filter and doing it all digitally, if you really can't tell the difference?
Photographers have always pushed the bounds of post processing, how is digital manipulation any different, along as there is a recognizable source photo, of course.
Mike, I respectfully disagree. If all that matters is the result, then why do we have any rules in any competition at all?
If all that matters is the final image, why bother with a camera at all? Just use CGI, and call it a day.
I am not against why Gyaban does, or CGI. I think of it more like NASCAR, or Formula 1. There are rules for the competitions. The idea is to win within the rule set.
First off, the series is super. The stillness of the water is terrific.
But forget DPC rules for a second, is there a difference between setting up a huge scene and then snapping a dual exposure with a special lens filter and doing it all digitally, if you really can't tell the difference?
Photographers have always pushed the bounds of post processing, how is digital manipulation any different, along as there is a recognizable source photo, of course.
Sure, there's a huge difference.
It's the reason the images below are, by far, my favorites from Gyaban.
The only difference is based on the your knowledge of the technique used. You admire the effort, not necessarily the resulting image.
And for that matter, I admire the girl and cat pictures too, I'd just admire them a hell of a lot more if they weren't being passed off as real photographs.
A magic trick can be extremely amazing and impressive. ...until you find out how it is done. Then to some it may still be impressive, or it may be disappointing.
A magic trick can be extremely amazing and impressive. ...until you find out how it is done. Then to some it may still be impressive, or it may be disappointing.
I'd say it's still impressive, but the magic is gone. And that's a pretty darn good analogy for photography as well I think. Nice one Art.
A magic trick can be extremely amazing and impressive. ...until you find out how it is done. Then to some it may still be impressive, or it may be disappointing.
I'd say it's still impressive, but the magic is gone. And that's a pretty darn good analogy for photography as well I think. Nice one Art.
I was reminded of the movie, The Prestige (WARNING: SPOILER ALERT) - "the teleporting man" trick - one guy did it with a twin, which would seem a little obvious and not very impressive. The other guy used clones of himself and subsequently killed them - VERY IMPRESSIVE! - but it was the technique that was MUCH MORE impressive than the trick. ;-) Great movie, btw.
I agree with Cory (geesh... I'm saying things like that? Is the world coming to an end??!?)
I think manipulation is making it incredibly difficult to just be a photographer. Luckily I'm not a professional photographer, but in our photography group, they were talking about people who want you to take 20 lbs off of them. Another photographer who's swapping heads on triplets to make the family photos work out perfectly. Unless you're Tanguera, you're not going to get the animal and the person to work perfectly together. I would rather photography stay photography and not have to start doing composites because clients want the perfection they see on the internet. This is the real world. What's wrong with showing the real world?
But I suppose what's wrong with cheating either.
*sigh*.
I feel like a kid in high school again. I feel like that photographer cheated on the test and scored 100. I studied my butt off and got an 89. And the teacher didn't know the difference.
I considered the gallery linked to in the original post, fine art photography and my posts were all in that context, not client portraits and especially not photojournalism. That said, I don't consider photomanipulation in any context (outside of photojournalism*) "cheating" any more than using certain camera angles and lighting techniques to make people look slimmer is "cheating".
Anyway, we've hashed this all out many times before and will continue to do so as long as we all have our own strong opinions about it. But IMO, producing a similar result (for better or worse) with less effort than someone else, isn't "cheating".
*When it comes to photojournalism, the composition, angle, frame and crop (e.g. omission of certain elements) are all forms of manipulation that we accept or are oblivious to.
i really only consider the the merits with which it was created if i intend to try to duplicate a similar result. make a image and have fun doing it, whether your efforts are in post or in the setup, where ever your talents lie, do whatever makes you happy, far to many critics are attempting to cheapen the creative vision of others.
