Photography
Related: About this forumheavy post processing. yea or nay. time to stir the pot a bit
some of the pople in a couple of my photography groups have been having a discussion/argument about heavy post processing. some of the members claim that a heavily post processed photo isnt really a photograph at all anymore and some even go so far as to say those that do it arent real photographers. they say a photograph should be an accurate depiction of what the eye sees,nothing more
i call them photography snobs.
i pointed out to them that ansel adams spent hours dodging and burning in te dark room and that he didnt "See" in black and white.
i believe that if he had access to modern tools he would have have been all over them and used them extensively.
in my view if the photo was taken with a camera its a photo despite any post processing that was done. there are a lot of kinds of post processing im not a fan of but that doesnt make the image any less of a photo. (high key or low key for example. just not my thing)
i present these 3 images
all heavily post processed.
first off is one of my focus stacked roses. processes in topaz simplify as an impressionist painting
next is a macro of a dragonfly. processed in topaz glow to give it a sci fi kind of look
last is another closeup this time of a dragonfly on a lotus flower
processed in color efex4 to give it a warmer tone and to give it a bit of an hdr effect . not a true hdr since its just one image
i dont expect these to be to everyone's liking. maybe only a scant few will like them. but thats not the point. i contend they are all valid as a photograph as anything else
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)I can understand if some competitions or groups would exclude post-processing, but it is absolutely photography.
Cool shots by the way, I really like the first one. I almost would have gone even further.
rdking647
(5,113 posts)maybe both.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)I like it. Definitely darken the edges though. If there's way to maybe soften it a bit, add a little bit of brush texture as if it were a painting, that would be cool. I don't remember an effective way to do that--it's been a while since I did serious image work, and I don't remember my old techniques
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)talk about posing, studio work, and manipulating the film or print not being "real".
There is certainly a place for non-processed realism, but photography is as much art as science and we went through this a hundred years ago and are way past saying abstractions are not "art".
My thoughts are that any image in any medium should bring out some truth about the subject, and if manipulation helps, it's a good thing. Manipulation to "lie" about a subject not so good, but everything in context.
I like these three a lot-- they bring a new viewpoint to the subjects and it works.
Went to your site, too, and lots of good work there. Keep it up.
teamster633
(2,029 posts)and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways.
---Ansel Adams
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)from "photo as documentation" to "photo as art" to "art that started off as a photo".
The only "wrong" that comes in is when the photographer/artist misrepresents where on that scale the photo belongs. The most common misrepresentation is art being called documentation. This normally results in the news photographer getting fired and the news agency publishing a long apology.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)There is a place for not allowing post-processing, and there is a place for using the photo as a starting point. Both are acceptable. Just don't say it is unprocessed if it is. But processing can be so much fun, and makes for great art.
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)It's a valid approach in my opinion.
It's not what I choose to do, but that does not make it any less valid an art form.
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)It's like throwing crap at a wall and hoping it will make my inferior photo look better. It's like taking 3 f-stop images and making them bounce, So cliche, GimmicK.. A lot of cartoonish displays of inability of one to shoot something of substance.
Photoshop has a place but, not in photography, maybe graphics?
A little brutal but, Adams would have aproved of what I state..
Snob? That's a lot of B/S to call tricks as true?
rdking647
(5,113 posts)juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)and you know that.
rdking647
(5,113 posts)and a lot of other people.
you can call it a gimmick all you want but that doesnt change things.
its art and photography. and its the future
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)It's not art, unless you feel it must be? The other ppl. need to have their heads examined. just my thoughts?
rdking647
(5,113 posts)ive dealt with a lot of self righteous photographers who claim that post processing/photoshop isnt art.
frankly i think that opinion is full of shit.
id love to here an explanation of how its not art....
just my thoughts....
juxtaposed
(2,778 posts)graphic art? ,,, Yes graphic art it is!
As i said earlier it is crap.
It looks good a couple times and then it becomes b/s.
Art LOL..
Response to rdking647 (Original post)
Stevenmarc This message was self-deleted by its author.