rant

i just wish i cold find the photo i took a few years back down at wittering which was in a storm people said i had played on the computer with that but i hadnt they said it was to chocolate boxy its on a disc some where which we cant find since we moved but then there is lots we still cant find lol

Totally and absolutely with you on this. The images are special.

“There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.”
― Ansel Adams

If I take a photograph of a flower in the garden or a rock sticking out of the sea then what have I added to make it unique. Making images or just recording something?

No rules to creativity and the injection of imagination during or after the event by whatever means it takes makes it art.

“No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit.”
― Ansel Adams

I won't argue with the great man there either!

may i say that i was not expexting such a response many thanks to all and i hope that a few others that have not said anything will join in this debate

We have this sort of discussion often at my local photo club. At one end we have those that insist the image should be a true representation of what was in front of the camera at the time the shot was taken, making a record of something, and at the other end are those that see photography as just part of the process in creating a piece of art, something you might present or hang up for display.

I personally sit towards the art end of this argument. From my direction it all boils down to the object of the exercise. I guess it might be from my engineering background but I like to think about what I am trying to achieve, visualisation, then try and work out if it is possible and how I am going to do it, implementation.

Sometimes this might just mean get getting the camera in the right place, at the right time, and in the right conditions to take the shot. Even then as I am now converted to shooting in raw I will invariably tinker with the result in post production even if it is just something simple like correcting the white balance or a lens distortion.

At other times, for example if I am trying to create some sort of abstract, the process might necessitate some serious manipulation. Even just for macro shots I often resort to focus stacking which is a form of manipulation.

In any case I think what comes out of the camera is very rarely a true representation of what was in front of the camera as the resultant image has been influenced by the camera settings, lens choice, and the processing that takes place in the camera.

For example I recently discovered the short, free, instructional videos by Mike Browne. While I thought I understood the foreshortening of perspective you get with longer lenses I was impressed with the video that showed this in action. It kept a foreground element the same same size and position in the shot but switched between a wide angle and long lens to get completely different results in the background elements. If we consider that a true representation is what we see through our own eyes then probably the wide angle and long lens images are not true representations. (See the video here)

Again from my direction it is all down to what you are trying to achieve and if that involves post processing then that is fine with me.

Glyn

Shades of the religion discussion here, in that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to push it on others. I respect everyone else's opinions, comments and suggestions, but do what I want in the end as it's my choice and life.

As with everything with no clear cut answer, it's all up for debate. As I detailed earlier, photo manipulation has been going on for many years, this is nothing new, at all.

On one hand there's the reality that picking a film stock and sensitivity is shaping the image before it's even exposed, through to the exposure time, aperture, composition etc are all shaping it. Monet's eye sight changes are clearly detailed in his paintings, showing just how subjective and personal 'as I see it in real life' is.

Then there's the technical restrictions, such as the limited DR of present cameras compared to the naked eye and brain. And included that in the digital realm it's all just ones and zeros, so the RAW capture of data is just what the sensor sees and couldn't possibly be considered to mimic what the eye sees. In fact in videography for example, one shoots with an extremely flat profile in order to maximise the dynamic range, and you're expected to colour grade as you see fit to produce any kind of final output.

And then to the other extreme, who's to say that you can't make art from photography? Who really is bold enough to say what someone else can and can't do with their camera? You can say if you like it or not, but to exclude a whole area outright? Really?

For me I say get the creative juices flowing and get out there. I don't care what you do with it, but get up and do it. The creative process is exciting, frustrating and rewarding. Enjoy it, whatever you do.

One of the best things about digital is that we can have as many different versions of the original as we like - one almost unedited, another with lots of pp done and everything in between.

Stu.. The modern digital camera is a computer.
Q: How do you know that what you see in front of the camera is the same as I see (or anyone else)?
It's all in our heads, literally.

I've been following this thread and wanting to respond but I'm still not sure what the best response is.

The "rant" seems based upon the premise that real photography is based upon what you see and take with the camera, but I've never ever taken a photograph,either with film or digital that's actually been accurate as to what I've seen.

"what you see" I've got two working eyes and they give a 3D image depth you can't get with a single lens and 2D image display and that's without the perspective, colour balance, detail, distortion and other differences.

So that leaves what you "take with the camera" but given what the camera takes is just a particular rendition of the images projected upon it's sensor/film then why is adding some post camera processing, whether that's darkroom manipulations of binary manipulations morally worse?

There is no resolution to this debate. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Putting aside the 2D/3D issue, it seems highly doubtful to me that anyone would know whether a photograph is accurate compared with what they saw at the time it was captured, because firstly our memories are not that good, and secondly everything we see as an image on the retina is affected by emotional factors when perceived by the brain. Whether they are being made or being viewed, photographic images are not only the result of the science and technology of their production but also a creation of the imagination. In agreement with Ansel Adams, there should be no rules about what the photographer does during image capture and image processing, in attempting to achieve the vision of his/her imagination.

Cheers.
Philip